PDA

View Full Version : The Michael Vick Saga


Pages : [1] 2

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 04:12 AM
With Vick being released from prison, what do you think the NFL should do with him in terms of his suspension when it comes up for review?

Here's what an ESPN poll says:
http://i39.tinypic.com/2wd8xhk.png

The Legend
05-20-2009, 04:36 AM
Let him do preseason and training camp but suspend him for the first game of the year.

Addict
05-20-2009, 04:55 AM
last time I checked he served his sentence. So let the guy play. I see no reason to hold a grudge now. I'll be making dog jokes every now and again, but that's beside the point.

Sveen
05-20-2009, 05:03 AM
He's served is time and payed for what he did. He as much as everyone else deserves a second chance.

Bucs_Rule
05-20-2009, 06:45 AM
The guy went out of his way to lied to the commissioner. Not suspending him is saying that is perfectly okay.

princefielder28
05-20-2009, 06:47 AM
Suspend him for the first four games and then move on.

abaddon41_80
05-20-2009, 09:23 AM
He's served is time and payed for what he did. He as much as everyone else deserves a second chance.

I agree 100% with this. I mean, come on. Leonard Little killed a human being while drunk driving and he is still playing in the NFL. Vick served his time and he deserves to play again if a team wants him.

Addict
05-20-2009, 09:28 AM
I agree 100% with this. I mean, come on. Leonard Little killed a human being while drunk driving and he is still playing in the NFL. Vick served his time and he deserves to play again if a team wants him.

I understand Leonard Little being brought up, but it really isn't relevant. These days misconduct is much more of an issue, in '98 it was a tragedy and literally he served his time and went from there. If Goodell was commish back then, he'd have gotten hell for it. But he lucked out with Tagliatelli (can't ever get his name right).
Vick will probably remain suspended for a few weeks since he lied to the commishioner, but I really don't think it's up to the NFL to issue more punishment. He's served the time.

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
05-20-2009, 09:36 AM
How many dogs are euthanized every year??

Dogfighting only became a felony crime in 2007, and was no longer listed anymore as a misdemeanor offense in most states, except Wyoming. ( Need to keep up with federal guidelines next time, Mike!)

The Humane Society wants anyone who pays to see a dogfight charged with a felony!!

He's still gonna be the best 3rd string QB in the league, put a uni on him!!

Quote from another non-sports forum about Vick:

" part of compassion is knowledge...and lets be frank he was a man of limited knowledge (about the consequences of dogfighting) prior to this incident. The exposure (humane society classes, peta classes) might have opened his eyes...no one knows a man's soul but God."

Amen.

Let the dude play!!

Matthew Jones
05-20-2009, 09:50 AM
I think Michael Vick's prison sentence was enough punishment. I'm ready to see this guy back on the field making big plays, hopefully in a Patriots uniform.

PACKmanN
05-20-2009, 09:54 AM
How many dogs are euthanized every year??

Dogfighting only became a felony crime in 2007, and was no longer listed anymore as a misdemeanor offense in most states, except Wyoming. ( Need to keep up with federal guidelines next time, Mike!)

The Humane Society wants anyone who pays to see a dogfight charged with a felony!!

He's still gonna be the best 3rd string QB in the league, put a uni on him!!

Quote from another non-sports forum about Vick:

" part of compassion is knowledge...and lets be frank he was a man of limited knowledge (about the consequences of dogfighting) prior to this incident. The exposure (humane society classes, peta classes) might have opened his eyes...no one knows a man's soul but God."

Amen.

Let the dude play!!

thats as valuable as a 2nd string long snapper.

iowatreat54
05-20-2009, 10:04 AM
I'm really happy that in BSPN's coverage, they decided to tell me who picked him up from jail, they will be trying for a "straight shot" drive home, and that they will be switching drivers along the way.

As for what should happen, I really don't care. He's a dumbass and an enormous dbag in my book forever, so for all I care he can just disappear into obscurity.

The Unseen
05-20-2009, 10:26 AM
Herm Edwards thinks he'll work in Jacksonville.

Then again, he's talking out of his ass. While Cleo Lemon has been a big camp disappointment, our new movement towards character and a focused mission for next season would be totally ruined if Vick came in. I'm not saying he'll do bad things, but the media distraction would be WAY too much.

DiG
05-20-2009, 10:56 AM
i cant bring myself to root against someone in trying to change their lives for the better. if you keep him out of football who knows what he might turn to. let him do what he does best. he f'd up. he served his time.

someone447
05-20-2009, 10:56 AM
Vick should be reinstated, and I don't see how you can say otherwise. He did his time, which INCLUDED a suspension from the NFL. He has served his time in jail, during which he was unable to play in the NFL.

I'm not even going to argue based on the comparative harmlessness of what he did in the first place.

the decider13
05-20-2009, 10:57 AM
I don't care what he does. He will play again, but I hate him as an individual. No matter what his "remorse" is. He only stopped because he got caught.

Gay Ork Wang
05-20-2009, 10:58 AM
i dont quite see what good it would bring to ban him

the decider13
05-20-2009, 11:03 AM
i dont quite see what good it would bring to ban him

It probably wouldn't do much good at all. If Pac-Man is always suspended, I don't see why Vick should be reinstated. Vick lied to the commish as well, and was actually convicted of something.

If Pete Rose can be banned for baseball for life, Vick can be banned from football.

brat316
05-20-2009, 11:11 AM
Let him play. Fine ban him from like 4 games, not gonna matter, he probably won't be in shape to start.

brat316
05-20-2009, 11:14 AM
It probably wouldn't do much good at all. If Pac-Man is always suspended, I don't see why Vick should be reinstated. Vick lied to the commish as well, and was actually convicted of something.

If Pete Rose can be banned for baseball for life, Vick can be banned from football.

ahhaha Pete Rose and Mike Vick things are two completely different cases, let Vike gamble on a football game and then throw the game, then ban him for life.


And for Pac-Man, if Vick keeps committing the same mistakes over and over then give him the PacMan treatment.

The Unseen
05-20-2009, 11:16 AM
It probably wouldn't do much good at all. If Pac-Man is always suspended, I don't see why Vick should be reinstated. Vick lied to the commish as well, and was actually convicted of something.

If Pete Rose can be banned for baseball for life, Vick can be banned from football.

Can be =/= should be

the decider13
05-20-2009, 11:19 AM
ahhaha Pete Rose and Mike Vick things are two completely different cases, let Vike gamble on a football game and then throw the game, then ban him for life.


And for Pac-Man, if Vick keeps committing the same mistakes over and over then give him the PacMan treatment.

Judging that Vick was running the dogfighting from the time he was drafted, I would call that making the same "mistake" over and over again. Actually it wasn't a mistake, it was a lifestyle choice. He can be a thug if he wants, or he can play football. He chose being a thug.

My point about Pete Rose was how much he meant to the sport. If baseball can keep their all time hit leader out of the HOF, the NFL can ban Vick.

EDIT: Rose didn't bet against the Reds, or throw games.

Gay Ork Wang
05-20-2009, 11:39 AM
It probably wouldn't do much good at all. If Pac-Man is always suspended, I don't see why Vick should be reinstated. Vick lied to the commish as well, and was actually convicted of something.

If Pete Rose can be banned for baseball for life, Vick can be banned from football.
what kind of bad things could it bring to bring him back?

Pac Man got like 500 chances and did stupid things over and over again. Vick did his one big thing, went to jail. so why not bring him back?

the decider13
05-20-2009, 11:42 AM
what kind of bad things could it bring to bring him back?

Pac Man got like 500 chances and did stupid things over and over again. Vick did his one big thing, went to jail. so why not bring him back?

Like I said, it would be one thing if he had one dog fight. It was a lifestyle that started shortly after he was drafted. He did it consistently, just as Pacman did stupid things consistently.

iowatreat54
05-20-2009, 11:42 AM
ahhaha Pete Rose and Mike Vick things are two completely different cases, let Vike gamble on a football game and then throw the game, then ban him for life.


And for Pac-Man, if Vick keeps committing the same mistakes over and over then give him the PacMan treatment.

This shows you have no idea what you are talking about if you are comparing him to Pete Rose.

Gay Ork Wang
05-20-2009, 11:43 AM
Like I said, it would be one thing if he had one dog fight. It was a lifestyle that started shortly after he was drafted. He did it consistently, just as Pacman did stupid things consistently.
because no one stopped him/asked him to stop. thats usually the easiest explanation.
Seriously its a difference if u do stupid things over and over again after youre told not to and doing a stupid thing for a long time without anyone saying anything

the decider13
05-20-2009, 11:46 AM
because no one stopped him/asked him to stop?

No one asked him to stop because it was secret dog fighting. It's not like he went in to the falcon's office in the morning and said "ok I'm gonna go kill some dogs!"

So it's acceptable to do something for a long time and not get caught? Doesn't really make sense.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
05-20-2009, 11:47 AM
Based on the crime, i'd say let him play. However, i believe that the sentence he paid to society is different than the sentence he paid to the NFL - he lied to the commissioner. I do believe that in order to maintain some level of order, he needs to have a 3 game suspension, otherwise you are saying it was okay to lie. This should not be the case and sets a bad precedense that will follow forward in the future. I believe a 3 game suspense is in line due to the NFL situation, but totally agree that he has served his time to society and needs to be able to play. I'd be fine with him not getting a suspension, but can totally justify him getting one for a brief period

MetSox17
05-20-2009, 11:51 AM
If Pete Rose can be banned for baseball for life, Vick can be banned from football.

I love how you use Pete Rose as an example when the two situations have absolutely no correlation whatsoever.

brat316
05-20-2009, 11:52 AM
Judging that Vick was running the dogfighting from the time he was drafted, I would call that making the same "mistake" over and over again. Actually it wasn't a mistake, it was a lifestyle choice. He can be a thug if he wants, or he can play football. He chose being a thug.

My point about Pete Rose was how much he meant to the sport. If baseball can keep their all time hit leader out of the HOF, the NFL can ban Vick.

EDIT: Rose didn't bet against the Reds, or throw games.

Not a big baseball guy, though I knew he had something to do with gambling. I have now wikied it, and found out.

Bengalsrocket
05-20-2009, 11:53 AM
I voted to reinstate him, redemption is one of the greatest acts mankind has and I think it would be a shame to withhold that from Michael Vick. I do not condone or endorse dog fighting, in fact, I would go as far as to say that it makes me physically ill to think about it; with that said, we're in a day and age where I believe we should act like humans and allow our fellow men to redeem themselves after making a mistake.

Note: I am not saying that someone who has murdered & raped 17 people should be allowed to walk freely after a 2 year sentence. There should be a punishment & rehabilitation period before we consider allowing people back into society / work. In the current case of Michael Vick I believe he has served his punishment. As far as his rehabilitation goes, I don't know all the details to what Vick has gone through, but hopefully if nothing else he has learned that it's not acceptable for him to do it anymore.

Remember folks, you can't teach empathy. Michael Vick may never realize what he did was wrong. That doesn't mean we should outcast him from our world, it just means that he may need to be monitored and taught that what he has done in the past is not acceptable.

anyways, just my opinion, carry on :)

Gay Ork Wang
05-20-2009, 11:53 AM
No one asked him to stop because it was secret dog fighting. It's not like he went in to the falcon's office in the morning and said "ok I'm gonna go kill some dogs!"

So it's acceptable to do something for a long time and not get caught? Doesn't really make sense.
well its a difference to see if he has changed. its obviously he wont change if he did something like that in secret. Its all about if he changed right now. if u dont give him a chance how could u know?

its not about if it was acceptable or not, it obviously was not from the society and he got prison for that

the decider13
05-20-2009, 11:55 AM
I love how you use Pete Rose as an example when the two situations have absolutely no correlation whatsoever.

One was banned and one is currently indefinately suspended? One of the options is a life time ban?

Forutunately there isn't much precedence on pro players slaughtering animals, so I don't have a super similar case to compare.

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 12:01 PM
One was banned and one is currently indefinately suspended? One of the options is a life time ban?

Forutunately there isn't much precedence on pro players slaughtering animals, so I don't have a super similar case to compare.

Rose was banned because he ruined the integrity of the game. He bet on baseball games (admittedly) and allegedly bet on Reds games. I'm no expert on baseball, but most of the talking heads I've heard speak on it believe that Rose did bet on games he was involved in.

Vick did nothing to compromise the integrity of the game. The two situations are completely different.

Mr. Hero
05-20-2009, 12:05 PM
Meh, I've supported Pacman and steroids before on this board, so I'm rooting for Vick to come back, beast, sign a big contract and then fund a group to destroy the eco-terrorists at PETA!

yourfavestoner
05-20-2009, 12:05 PM
My favorite NFL player ever is coming back.
I am so happy.

MetSox17
05-20-2009, 12:06 PM
One was banned and one is currently indefinately suspended? One of the options is a life time ban?

Forutunately there isn't much precedence on pro players slaughtering animals, so I don't have a super similar case to compare.

Lol, okay, the fact that they are both currently "suspended" from their respective sport is about the only thing they have in common, but if that's the case, then i guess you can also make the connection to Manny Ramirez, right? :rolleyes:

senormysterioso
05-20-2009, 12:07 PM
As a fan of the game, I want to see that guy play some more. I saw him play at Lambeau his second year in the league, and watching him run and how he could throw the ball...he's the kind of athlete I'll pay to see. If he's still got even a third of that kind of ability, I would love to see him on the field again

Mr. Hero
05-20-2009, 12:09 PM
Rose was banned because he ruined the integrity of the game. He bet on baseball games (admittedly) and allegedly bet on Reds games. I'm no expert on baseball, but most of the talking heads I've heard speak on it believe that Rose did bet on games he was involved in.

Vick did nothing to compromise the integrity of the game. The two situations are completely different.

I'm pretty sure Rose only bet on the teams he was managing when he bet on games he was involved in, never against his team. So I don't think Rose should've been banned either. Hell if I found out that coughlin made eleventy billion dollars betting on the giants to beat the pats in the superbowl I'd respect him more, and as far as I'm aware that's basically what rose got banned for.

Hines
05-20-2009, 12:10 PM
If Goddell doesn't give him another chance, he is really ******* up the league. If he can give Pacman 3 or 4 chances, why can't Vick get another one? I hate animal cruelty, but he served his time and jail can seem to change a person. I would suspend him for a game or two, but anything more than that would be ridiculous IMO.

the decider13
05-20-2009, 12:11 PM
Rose was banned because he ruined the integrity of the game. He bet on baseball games (admittedly) and allegedly bet on Reds games. I'm no expert on baseball, but most of the talking heads I've heard speak on it believe that Rose did bet on games he was involved in.

Vick did nothing to compromise the integrity of the game. The two situations are completely different.

Rose probably did deserve to be banned. He did bet on games he was involved in, but there is not evidence he bet against the team. But that is beside the point. I was just throwing in one of the few perma bans in sports. It shouldn't be discussed anymore.

My basic view on banning Vick: Playing football is not a right. Goodell has no responsibility to reinstate him.

Mr. Hero
05-20-2009, 12:13 PM
If Goddell doesn't give him another chance, he is really ******* up the league. If he can give Pacman 3 or 4 chances, why can't Vick get another one? I hate animal cruelty, but he served his time and jail can seem to change a person. I would suspend him for a game or two, but anything more than that would be ridiculous IMO.

You know that once PETA and other animal-rights (does anyone else just start laughing once they hear that phrase?) groups start making this a huge news story again Goodell's going to suspend him for at least half the season. I mean Goodell's suspension formula is media coverage times how high profile the player is.

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 12:13 PM
My basic view on banning Vick: Playing football is not a right. Goodell has no responsibility to reinstate him.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be reinstated...

If Vick had any money and the NFL continued his suspension he could probably take it up in court on the grounds of discrimination or something similar.

the decider13
05-20-2009, 12:14 PM
Lol, okay, the fact that they are both currently "suspended" from their respective sport is about the only thing they have in common, but if that's the case, then i guess you can also make the connection to Manny Ramirez, right? :rolleyes:

Way to take things out of perspective. Want to talk about the Nascar driver that got suspended for taking allergy medication? I was talking about permanant bans.

Find a case about a pro player slaughtering animals, and I will gladly use that instead.

Mr. Hero
05-20-2009, 12:14 PM
Rose probably did deserve to be banned. He did bet on games he was involved in, but there is not evidence he bet against the team. But that is beside the point. I was just throwing in one of the few perma bans in sports. It shouldn't be discussed anymore.

My basic view on banning Vick: Playing football is not a right. Goodell has no responsibility to reinstate him.

Goodell has no responsibility but to do what's in the best interests of the NFL and banning one of the most prolific athletes this league has ever seen is not in the best interests of this league.

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 12:16 PM
Way to take things out of perspective. Want to talk about the Nascar driver that got suspended for taking allergy medication? I was talking about permanant bans.

Find a case about a pro player slaughtering animals, and I will gladly use that instead.

It doesn't matter whether Vick slaughtered dogs, got charged with a drug offense, or was accused of domestic violence. It's all in the same basket of crimes. Matt Jones, Michael Vick, Tank Johnson, etc. are all in the same boat. Guys who used PEDs or bet on their sport are in a different category and are not relevant to Michael Vick's situation.

Hines
05-20-2009, 12:17 PM
You know that once PETA and other animal-rights (does anyone else just start laughing once they hear that phrase?) groups start making this a huge news story again Goodell's going to suspend him for at least half the season. I mean Goodell's suspension formula is media coverage times how high profile the player is.

I think PETA is making him talk to children about animal cruelty, so PETA should let him play. It's just ******** that Vick get's all this news for animal cruelty when Stallworth isn't even in jail or suspended after killing a man while driving over the limit. That's two crimes right there. Pacman paralized a man, plus has done other ****, and yet he isn't banned or in jail. I just feel like the legal system is very strange at times.

the decider13
05-20-2009, 12:22 PM
Goodell has no responsibility but to do what's in the best interests of the NFL and banning one of the most prolific athletes this league has ever seen is not in the best interests of this league.

There is no denying that Vick was a phenominal athlete who could have done a lot for the sport if he hadn't screwed up. But he did. It's insanely hard for an ex-convict to find work, so why should Vick instantly be given his multi million dollar job back?

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 12:23 PM
There is no denying that Vick was a phenominal athlete who could have done a lot for the sport if he hadn't screwed up. But he did. It's insanely hard for an ex-convict to find work, so why should Vick instantly be given his multi million dollar job back?

How would having him sitting at home collecting welfare checks improve anybody's situation? Are you trying to say that convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to work?

the decider13
05-20-2009, 12:23 PM
It doesn't matter whether Vick slaughtered dogs, got charged with a drug offense, or was accused of domestic violence. It's all in the same basket of crimes. Matt Jones, Michael Vick, Tank Johnson, etc. are all in the same boat. Guys who used PEDs or bet on their sport are in a different category and are not relevant to Michael Vick's situation.

I don't support any of them either.

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 12:24 PM
I don't support any of them either.

I was making the point that you need to compare Vick to those players, not guys like Pete Rose because there is no relationship there.

the decider13
05-20-2009, 12:24 PM
How would having him sitting at home collecting welfare checks improve anybody's situation? Are you trying to say that convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to work?

Yes...those are my words. That is what I said. Wait, no it isn't

Vick already has a construction job. He will have a steady income.

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 12:25 PM
Yes...those are my words. That is what I said. Wait, no it isn't

Vick already has a construction job. He will have a steady income.

So it's OK if he works a construction job but he's not allowed to play in the NFL? Why?

the decider13
05-20-2009, 12:27 PM
So it's OK if he works a construction job but he's not allowed to play in the NFL? Why?

This is a pointless arguement...I have my opinion, you have yours.

We can start recruiting for the NFL in parole offices. No suspensions for anyone.

Hines
05-20-2009, 12:27 PM
What's Vick's constructive job? Last I heard he was making less than a dollar a hour mopping floors.

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 12:31 PM
What's Vick's constructive job? Last I heard he was making less than a dollar a hour mopping floors.

He has to work on a construction crew as a part of his work-release program. He'll be making $10/hour.

Gay Ork Wang
05-20-2009, 12:44 PM
My basic view on banning Vick: Playing football is not a right. Goodell has no responsibility to reinstate him.

Playing football is not a right, but we are debating about that it would make more sense to reinstate him than not to.

Gay Ork Wang
05-20-2009, 12:48 PM
There is no denying that Vick was a phenominal athlete who could have done a lot for the sport if he hadn't screwed up. But he did. It's insanely hard for an ex-convict to find work, so why should Vick instantly be given his multi million dollar job back?
because he is a good football player, plain and simple. People wouldnt give him multi year deals, but if teams think he will help to improve they will pay him. thats a decision that should be left to the teams

Yatta!
05-20-2009, 01:15 PM
Poll on ESPN front page says that 75% think he will return and be a starting QB.

Seems a bit optimistic....

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
05-20-2009, 01:19 PM
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1437/1187609126_c667dc4c46.jpg

brat316
05-20-2009, 01:22 PM
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1437/1187609126_c667dc4c46.jpg

I'd buy that game, but first I want a demo. It better have a good engine and graphics, and a decent story. Run a dog fighting ring, the FBI breaks in your mansion from copters and what not, u get a gun and fight your way out. You use "MV7" mode slows everything down and you race past people, juke bullets outs. Get caught, fight it out in jail, survive and not get raped, and then make it to the NFL at the end.

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 01:32 PM
Poll on ESPN front page says that 75% think he will return and be a starting QB.

Seems a bit optimistic....

I agree. I actually think his biggest hurdle will be finding a team willing to take him. I'm sure some coaches would have him but I bet a lot of owners would veto bringing him in for obvious reasons.

Sveen
05-20-2009, 01:46 PM
Raiders, Saints, Patriots among possible landing spots for Michael Vick (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/05/20/vick/index.html?eref=T1)

I wouldn't mind seeing him with the Saints. Could do some good things with his 5-10 snaps per game.

LonghornsLegend
05-20-2009, 01:46 PM
I know that I'm sick of ESPN feeding me with Michael Vick info around the clock, yesterday there was an entire special on him getting released from jail, seriously? I mean, there isn't much else to know, I'm just sick of hearing about the same thing over and over.

yourfavestoner
05-20-2009, 01:54 PM
I know that I'm sick of ESPN feeding me with Michael Vick info around the clock, yesterday there was an entire special on him getting released from jail, seriously? I mean, there isn't much else to know, I'm just sick of hearing about the same thing over and over.

That's E!spn for you.

someone447
05-20-2009, 02:09 PM
I'm pretty sure Rose only bet on the teams he was managing when he bet on games he was involved in, never against his team. So I don't think Rose should've been banned either. Hell if I found out that coughlin made eleventy billion dollars betting on the giants to beat the pats in the superbowl I'd respect him more, and as far as I'm aware that's basically what rose got banned for.

That still ruins the integrity of the game. If he bets on some of his games but not others, who is to say he wouldn't use his best relief pitchers in games he bet on, or save them in games he didn't bet on.

I would have no problem if he bet on his team every single game, but if he picked and chose which games, that is a problem(which he obviously did.)

banetzdererste
05-20-2009, 02:12 PM
Bring him back, give him a second Chance!

He is one of the best in the League

someone447
05-20-2009, 02:15 PM
Yes...those are my words. That is what I said. Wait, no it isn't

Vick already has a construction job. He will have a steady income.

Why is a construction job any different than the NFL? If a team wants to pay him to play football he should be able to. He served his sentence, there is no reason to continue punishing him after he paid his debt to society.

Completely unrelated to whether or not he should be allowed back in but:
THEY WERE JUST ******* DOGS!!! THEY WERE NOT HUMAN BEINGS!! THEY WERE NOT EVEN PEOPLES PETS!!!! THEY WERE DOGS BRED FOR FIGHTING!!!! DOG FIGHTING IS WIDELY ACCEPTED AND PROMOTED IN POOR, URBAN AREAS!!!!

If you are so against dog fighting, do things to change the culture of violence in poor urban areas. Locking people up for dog fighting is the same as locking people up for selling drugs. Neither of them remotely fix the problem inherent in the system. They are band-aids on an amputated leg. Fix poor urban areas and dog fighting goes away(along with all the drug violence and the like).

badgerbacker
05-20-2009, 02:32 PM
Hasn't Vick already been suspended for 2 seasons? That seems like a worse punishment than anybody else has gotten. Let the kid play.

vikes_28
05-20-2009, 02:34 PM
I don't think he should play in the NFL again. Its just sick what he did. Of course I kinda take the side of the dogs here because my fiance is going to school for vet medicine. But still, If anyone saw some of the footage of what he did it just made me sick. In this day and age, dogs are treated like part of the family. What he did was not interesting, it wasn't cool, and it wasn't funny. It was just sick. Only people with sick minds would do something like that.

someone447
05-20-2009, 02:55 PM
I don't think he should play in the NFL again. Its just sick what he did. Of course I kinda take the side of the dogs here because my fiance is going to school for vet medicine. But still, If anyone saw some of the footage of what he did it just made me sick. In this day and age, dogs are treated like part of the family. What he did was not interesting, it wasn't cool, and it wasn't funny. It was just sick. Only people with sick minds would do something like that.

THESE WERE NOT PETS, THEY WERE NOT PART OF ANYONES FAMILY!!!

It's ridiculous that he spent two years in jail over some ******* dogs in the first place. How about we fix all the violence against humans in the inner cities before we fix violence against animals(even though if we fix the former, the latter will also get fixed).

sweetness34
05-20-2009, 03:03 PM
He's been suspended for 2 years and you want to suspend him for more games this year? C'mon now. Let the guy play. He went bankrupt and lost two years of his life/playing career, if he wants to play and will remain on his best behavior, reinstate him for the entire season.

iowatreat54
05-20-2009, 03:08 PM
If you want to speak technically, he hasn't been suspended 1 game from the NFL. Just because he was in prison and wasn't allowed to play, doesn't mean the NFL punished him.

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 03:09 PM
If you want to speak technically, he hasn't been suspended 1 game from the NFL. Just because he was in prison and wasn't allowed to play, doesn't mean the NFL punished him.

Actually he's been suspended indefinitely by the NFL...

iowatreat54
05-20-2009, 03:10 PM
Actually he's been suspended indefinitely by the NFL...

Hmm touche. Like I said before, I couldn't care less if he plays ever again so I haven't really followed it.

sweetness34
05-20-2009, 03:14 PM
Why is a construction job any different than the NFL? If a team wants to pay him to play football he should be able to. He served his sentence, there is no reason to continue punishing him after he paid his debt to society.

Completely unrelated to whether or not he should be allowed back in but:
THEY WERE JUST ******* DOGS!!! THEY WERE NOT HUMAN BEINGS!! THEY WERE NOT EVEN PEOPLES PETS!!!! THEY WERE DOGS BRED FOR FIGHTING!!!! DOG FIGHTING IS WIDELY ACCEPTED AND PROMOTED IN POOR, URBAN AREAS!!!!

If you are so against dog fighting, do things to change the culture of violence in poor urban areas. Locking people up for dog fighting is the same as locking people up for selling drugs. Neither of them remotely fix the problem inherent in the system. They are band-aids on an amputated leg. Fix poor urban areas and dog fighting goes away(along with all the drug violence and the like).

ZOMMGGZZZ CAPITALIZING WORDS WILL MAKE MY ARGUMENT BETTER!!!!!

Vick knew the laws, broke them and lied to the league, his team, and investigators on multiple occassions. Regardless of whether or not you think it's wrong, the laws are in place and he proceeded to not follow them. And had Vick not lied to everyone his time would have been shorter in prison.

I think marijuana should be legal but if you get busted for it you should do time, or well face the penalties involved.

This is definitely a moral issue. I do not advocate fighting dogs because I think it's disgusting to do, but I can see why people do it. It's money, it's status, it's greed. I think there are far worse things people could be doing than fighting dogs but as I mentioned, he knew the laws and broke them. There's a penalty for that.

Vick's not a bad person, he just didn't make smart decisions and then proceeded to lie about it. He has no one to blame but himself and this is coming from someone who liked him on and off the field.

Mr. Hero
05-20-2009, 03:22 PM
This is a pointless arguement...I have my opinion, you have yours.

We can start recruiting for the NFL in parole offices. No suspensions for anyone.

That's such a crappy cop out, the argument hasn't gotten cyclical yet, you just don't want to analyze your position and his because you feel so strongly about yours.

That still ruins the integrity of the game. If he bets on some of his games but not others, who is to say he wouldn't use his best relief pitchers in games he bet on, or save them in games he didn't bet on.

I would have no problem if he bet on his team every single game, but if he picked and chose which games, that is a problem(which he obviously did.)

That's good point, I just feel like banishment is an excessive penalty for a guy betting on his team to win. I would've understood a hefty suspension, but straight up banishment just seems extreme. *shrug* I would reserve banishment for guys who bet against their teams or what not but on winning? Even if he does manage differently he's still going to be doing it in an attempt to win.

I don't think he should play in the NFL again. Its just sick what he did. Of course I kinda take the side of the dogs here because my fiance is going to school for vet medicine. But still, If anyone saw some of the footage of what he did it just made me sick. In this day and age, dogs are treated like part of the family. What he did was not interesting, it wasn't cool, and it wasn't funny. It was just sick. Only people with sick minds would do something like that.

Statements like that make me laugh, a) they're still ******* dumb beasts, would it be better if Vick had a cougar fighting ring or a coyote fighting ring? and b) Vick wasn't abusing dogs that could be pets, he was dealing with beasts that had been bred for fighting, raised for fitting, for all intents and purposes they were a different bread of animal than the domesticated dog.

Mr. Hero
05-20-2009, 03:25 PM
ZOMMGGZZZ CAPITALIZING WORDS WILL MAKE MY ARGUMENT BETTER!!!!!

Vick knew the laws, broke them and lied to the league, his team, and investigators on multiple occassions. Regardless of whether or not you think it's wrong, the laws are in place and he proceeded to not follow them. And had Vick not lied to everyone his time would have been shorter in prison.

I think marijuana should be legal but if you get busted for it you should do time, or well face the penalties involved.

This is definitely a moral issue. I do not advocate fighting dogs because I think it's disgusting to do, but I can see why people do it. It's money, it's status, it's greed. I think there are far worse things people could be doing than fighting dogs but as I mentioned, he knew the laws and broke them. There's a penalty for that.

Vick's not a bad person, he just didn't make smart decisions and then proceeded to lie about it. He has no one to blame but himself and this is coming from someone who liked him on and off the field.

And he's served his time for his decisions and his lying. I'm not even arguing against that law in this post, I'm just pointing out that he's been punished for those things by the government, why does the NFL have to punish him now aswell? To show that they're big boys too or some other moronic macho ego issue? Is Goodell going to be upset that he didn't get to punish vick but the government had to do it for him? It just seems so childish.

Flyboy
05-20-2009, 03:45 PM
A lot people linking him to the Saints. Highly doubt that happens though.

sweetness34
05-20-2009, 03:48 PM
And he's served his time for his decisions and his lying. I'm not even arguing against that law in this post, I'm just pointing out that he's been punished for those things by the government, why does the NFL have to punish him now aswell? To show that they're big boys too or some other moronic macho ego issue? Is Goodell going to be upset that he didn't get to punish vick but the government had to do it for him? It just seems so childish.

Isn't that exactly what I said in my post on the same page?

sweetness34
05-20-2009, 03:51 PM
He's been suspended for 2 years and you want to suspend him for more games this year? C'mon now. Let the guy play. He went bankrupt and lost two years of his life/playing career, if he wants to play and will remain on his best behavior, reinstate him for the entire season.

I'll even quote it to make things easier.

In short here's my view; he ****** up, did the time he should have (lying did not help him in this at all), was on his best behavior in prison, and now that he's out should be allowed to play the entire 2009-2010 season.

He's not a bad person, he just made some big mistakes. But to punish him even further after all he went through? That would be wrong. Let the guy play.

jkpigskin
05-20-2009, 03:54 PM
vick to the vikings!!!
DO IT!

vikes_28
05-20-2009, 04:09 PM
vick to the vikings!!!
DO IT!

I'd rather shoot a dog.

jkpigskin
05-20-2009, 04:35 PM
I'd rather shoot a dog.

i mean, i see the risk and how absurd it may sound, but right now, your team is set... except at the QB spot. I see three options for the vikes, an old brett favre whose arm is gonna hold up anymore, sage+tavaris, or taking a risk with mike vick. You dont have to ask him to do much b/c the offense lives and dies by Adrian Peterson. I know im putting a lot of confidence in vick, but the fact is, i think he is a better risk to take than the other choices. Just my 2cents

Mr. Hero
05-20-2009, 04:38 PM
Isn't that exactly what I said in my post on the same page?

I don't see the point of your post then.

OregonDucks
05-20-2009, 04:56 PM
People keep saying he payed his dues did his time, well in all reality did he even have a choice? NO

Saints-Tigers
05-20-2009, 05:16 PM
i mean, i see the risk and how absurd it may sound, but right now, your team is set... except at the QB spot. I see three options for the vikes, an old brett favre whose arm is gonna hold up anymore, sage+tavaris, or taking a risk with mike vick. You dont have to ask him to do much b/c the offense lives and dies by Adrian Peterson. I know im putting a lot of confidence in vick, but the fact is, i think he is a better risk to take than the other choices. Just my 2cents


I like that idea. He'll be better than Favre, Rosenfail, or Jackson IMO.

Race for the Heisman
05-20-2009, 05:31 PM
People keep saying he payed his dues did his time, well in all reality did he even have a choice? NO

What's your point? He plead guilty, was sentenced, and did the time the government asked of him (except what he will serve under house-arrest). What does his having any choice in the matter have to do with anything?

the decider13
05-20-2009, 05:47 PM
What's your point? He plead guilty, was sentenced, and did the time the government asked of him (except what he will serve under house-arrest). What does his having any choice in the matter have to do with anything?

He pled guilty because all of his accomplices turned states evidence against him. He had no way out.

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 05:49 PM
He pled guilty because all of his accomplices turned states evidence against him. He had no way out.

What does this have to do with anything?

the decider13
05-20-2009, 05:51 PM
What does this have to do with anything?

Just a little side note.

OregonDucks
05-20-2009, 06:42 PM
If you got sentenced to 23 months in prison what are you gonna do? Choose not to server any time. Its against you to say. I mean everyone says he served his time. well so does everyone else who has to serve there time. its mandatory. You guys are saying he served his time as if he had a choice and choose to do the right thing and serve it. HE HAD TO SERVE HIS TIME.

CC.SD
05-20-2009, 06:55 PM
The Jay Cutler saga was better. I'm very critical of my sagas.

Timbathia
05-20-2009, 06:58 PM
What does this have to do with anything?

The dude lied and then showed no remorse for committing a crime. He may have "paid his dues" in the eyes of the government, but if I run the NFL, then I dont let him back in because criminals that get caught, try and lie their way out of it, and show no remorse, give my product a bad image.

The NFL are in the business of making money, and this sort of criminal activity in the league detracts from the widespread appeal of the sport, costing money.

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 07:04 PM
The dude lied and then showed no remorse for committing a crime. He may have "paid his dues" in the eyes of the government, but if I run the NFL, then I dont let him back in because criminals that get caught, try and lie their way out of it, and show no remorse, give my product a bad image.

The NFL are in the business of making money, and this sort of criminal activity in the league detracts from the widespread appeal of the sport, costing money.

How can you tell if somebody showed remorse for a crime?

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 07:05 PM
If you got sentenced to 23 months in prison what are you gonna do? Choose not to server any time. Its against you to say. I mean everyone says he served his time. well so does everyone else who has to serve there time. its mandatory. You guys are saying he served his time as if he had a choice and choose to do the right thing and serve it. HE HAD TO SERVE HIS TIME.

What are you talking about? The point is that he's already been punished.

CC.SD
05-20-2009, 07:23 PM
How can you tell if somebody showed remorse for a crime?

There are plenty of ways. Silly question.

Manic Depressant
05-20-2009, 07:27 PM
There are plenty of ways. Silly question.

Please, indulge me.

CC.SD
05-20-2009, 07:35 PM
Please, indulge me.

You don't know how to show remorse? This is disturbing to me.

Try having a good cry.

OregonDucks
05-20-2009, 08:41 PM
Manic I understand that, my point is people are saying he himself payed his dues. I know he was punished but thats different then saying he himself payed for his dues. The government payed it for him by putting him in prison.

OregonDucks
05-20-2009, 08:42 PM
But since he went to prison because he was forced to I guess he is a different man and should be felt sorry for. holy cow

Bengalsrocket
05-20-2009, 08:56 PM
If you got sentenced to 23 months in prison what are you gonna do? Choose not to server any time. Its against you to say. I mean everyone says he served his time. well so does everyone else who has to serve there time. its mandatory. You guys are saying he served his time as if he had a choice and choose to do the right thing and serve it. HE HAD TO SERVE HIS TIME.

No is saying he had a choice. The point of saying "he served his time" is meant to say, don't double punish someone for the same crime.

someone447
05-20-2009, 11:01 PM
ZOMMGGZZZ CAPITALIZING WORDS WILL MAKE MY ARGUMENT BETTER!!!!!

Vick knew the laws, broke them and lied to the league, his team, and investigators on multiple occassions. Regardless of whether or not you think it's wrong, the laws are in place and he proceeded to not follow them. And had Vick not lied to everyone his time would have been shorter in prison.

I think marijuana should be legal but if you get busted for it you should do time, or well face the penalties involved.

This is definitely a moral issue. I do not advocate fighting dogs because I think it's disgusting to do, but I can see why people do it. It's money, it's status, it's greed. I think there are far worse things people could be doing than fighting dogs but as I mentioned, he knew the laws and broke them. There's a penalty for that.

Vick's not a bad person, he just didn't make smart decisions and then proceeded to lie about it. He has no one to blame but himself and this is coming from someone who liked him on and off the field.

No capitalizing words shows my exasperation at this entire situation. Punishing people does absolutely nothing to fix the problem. This problem is fixable, yet instead of attempting to fix it we punish those who are caught up in the culture. I honestly see the way our country treats poor urban blacks much more despicable than the way Vick treated those dogs.

someone447
05-20-2009, 11:04 PM
Manic I understand that, my point is people are saying he himself payed his dues. I know he was punished but thats different then saying he himself payed for his dues. The government payed it for him by putting him in prison.

He could have fled the country... There isn't a single country in the world that would extradite for dog fighting.

locseti
05-20-2009, 11:12 PM
He paid his debt, some rapists don't even get a yr and a half.

OregonDucks
05-21-2009, 03:07 AM
I just think its dumb how you guys think he had a choice thats all. Give him all the credit but he is still an evil person and served a weak sentence. He did some malicious things to those dogs.

Addict
05-21-2009, 04:16 AM
I just think its dumb how you guys think he had a choice thats all. Give him all the credit but he is still an evil person and served a weak sentence. He did some malicious things to those dogs.

two years in Leavenworth doesn't count as a weak sentence, I'm sorry.

Besides, this is how the system works. Laws dictate what is legal and what is not, and what the punishment of breaking said laws is. Judges decide wether or not a person has commited the crime or not and if the suspect is judged as guilty, a sentence as determined in the law broken by the offender is handed down.
He didn't receive a weak sentence, a judge decided that two years of inprisonment was a due and fair punishment for the crime he comitted. Therefore, it's not weak or strong, it's justice. You can disagree with his sentence, but then you'd have to critisize the law, not the judge and least of all Vick. What he's done is just plain wrong, but the fact that he was given two years isn't his fault.

Manic Depressant
05-21-2009, 05:37 AM
I just think its dumb how you guys think he had a choice thats all. Give him all the credit but he is still an evil person and served a weak sentence. He did some malicious things to those dogs.

What are you going on about? It's well-known that Vick was made an example of and he certainly did not receive a light sentence.

Also, your logic makes no sense. Vick went to prison and served his sentence just like every other criminal. I have no idea what you're trying to argue about him being forced into prison. That's how prison works, you don't go voluntarily.

Gay Ork Wang
05-21-2009, 08:16 AM
Manic I understand that, my point is people are saying he himself payed his dues. I know he was punished but thats different then saying he himself payed for his dues. The government payed it for him by putting him in prison.
so if the NFL bans him, where is the difference?

i also dont get the argument about him lying to everyone. hell i bet 90% of people would lie in that situation to try to not get into prison...

Halsey
05-21-2009, 09:30 AM
It's funny to see the Vick groupies that are hanging around outside of Vick's house trying to play him up as some kind of martyr. I guess they have nothing better to do than hang outside of their hero's home...

someone447
05-21-2009, 09:30 AM
I just think its dumb how you guys think he had a choice thats all. Give him all the credit but he is still an evil person and served a weak sentence. He did some malicious things to those dogs.

Bolded for emphasis. They were dogs, how about we spend our money finding and incarcerating those who kill people. Even better how about we spend the money trying to fix the problems that cause violence.

Not to mention, NO ONE THINKS HE HAD A CHOICE!! The government did not pay for his crimes, it just forced him to pay for his crimes. Just like every other criminal. You can't be as dense as you are acting. This has to be a troll.

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
05-21-2009, 10:13 AM
It's bad what he did, but I just can't get emotionally caught up over dofighting the way some people do.

Most fights don't end up with a dog dying anyway. Once a dog quits fighting or has another animal in a complete dominant position, the owners pull their animals apart.

What a shock that a pro football player would be interested in a brutal blood sport like dogfighting, because we all know that the NFL is one big church bingo league.

Addict
05-21-2009, 11:05 AM
yes because the NFL too is a brutal blood sport.

wait, what?

wonderbredd24
05-21-2009, 11:20 AM
I do not understand this sentiment that the NFL seems to owe Vick. No one owes Vick anything. Vick made his own mistakes and if he's fortunate enough to play football again, he should consider himself damn lucky to have the second chance.

The word redemption is being thrown around... why does redemption mean Michael Vick gets to play football again? Nowhere in the word does it mean he should go back to making millions of dollar throwing a football around.

And someone even threw out the idea that Vick could sue if the NFL did not reinstate him. Ask the average ex-con how the job market is looking? Construction is pretty much a best case scenario for them... why is it so horrible that Vick might have to do that for the rest of his life?

The NFL and Roger Goodell has every right not to reinstate Vick in order to protect their business and the brand. If that's the choice Goodell makes, so be it. The NFL can live without Vick.

That said, I fully expect Vick will be reinstated at some point, but I will be curious to see what NFL team is going to invite the enormous backlash that will come with signing Vick. And people may not believe it, but there will be fans of whatever team Vick signs with who will no longer be fans of that team as a result or at least until Vick is gone.

I also have a very hard time seeing Vick getting back anywhere near he was before prison... this game is too hard for someone to just stop playing for a long while and then just come back to and make it happen like they used to... especially a quarterback.

If dogfighting is not enough to have someone banned from the league, where is the line? I'm just curious. When should someone be banned from the NFL?

I'm also dumbfounded by the people who excuse dogfighting as not being a big deal or it being "just dogs". Maybe it's just me, but there is something inherently evil about cruelty to animals in any form, let alone training them to fight each other and when they are not good enough, put them down in any number of disgusting ways.

And for Vick, I have yet to get the impression that he's sorry for anything except for getting caught.

Gay Ork Wang
05-21-2009, 11:22 AM
Nowhere in the word does it mean he should go back to making millions of dollar throwing a football around.


It doesnt, but if teams want him to play and show interest, why deny it?

that would be like a big company wanting to pay a ex con massiv money to work there and the government just steps in and says: nah, he doesnt deserve it

wonderbredd24
05-21-2009, 11:27 AM
It doesnt, but if teams want him to play and show interest, why deny it?

that would be like a big company wanting to pay a ex con massiv money to work there and the government just steps in and says: nah, he doesnt deserve it

That goes back to when I said where is the line?

I have little doubt that if Mike Tyson was a football player instead of a boxer, NFL teams would have shown interest? Do you want a rapist in the league? What if it was a pediphile, but he could give a team 20 sacks? Is that ok?

Where do you, where does the NFL draw the proverbial line in the sand?

To answer your question though... if Goodell says he wants to reinstate him, that's his call and then the team's call. If they go that route, so be it.

Gay Ork Wang
05-21-2009, 11:29 AM
well that all depends on the league and how much they feel that would hurt their image. just like at the kobe case i guess.

Point in case though is that he says he wants to change and Goodell is all about the second chance (e.g. Pacman). Thats why it would be hypocrite to not try to give someone like Vick a second cahnce.

LizardState
05-21-2009, 11:40 AM
Dogfighting, financing dogfighting, hanging the losing dogs, spreading STDs, lying repeatedly.....It's shortsighted & just plain silly to believe Vick's crimes start & end with dogfighting or cruelty to animals although that's plenty bad enough & one of the most unforgivable crimes in this day & age. The guy is a pathological liar, the kind who sincerely believes he has done no wrongdoing & can pass polygraphs. Remember this episode, just one of many, from 4-5 yrs. ago:

"Hi there, pretty lady, can I buy you a drink? The name's Mexico, Ron Mexico, & I'm a starting NFL quarterback!" I'll bet those Falcons jerseys with MEXICO on the back are going up in price now on EBay now that Vick is making headlines again. I'll bet this a-hole lied to her about having the herpes she sued him for transmitting to her thru unsafe sex (he settled for 6 figs or more out of court)

He lied with a perfectly straight face to Atlanta owner Arthur Blank about financing the dogfights held on his property, the same illegal fights that were common knowledge throughout Hampton, VA & the Falcons locker room & on which Vick & his friends wagered regularly, also illegal & also lied about. I think Blank was trying to keep the scandal contained by sending his team of pvt. investigators to Virginia to chk. out the rumors before the NFL or law enforcement became involved, he was new to NFL ownership & thought he could keep a lid on it, pretty naive in any case. Anyway Vick was asked about it behind closed doors face to face & he lied. That's why I don't think anyone can believe him now when he says he has remorse over this obvious criminal lifestyle problem as indicated earlier in the thread, I think he's incorrigible & I know I don't believe him.

ESPN speculated yesterday that at some point a desperate team would contact him, even though he requires complete retraining & at least a yr's reps at the QB position to be effective at the NFL level. He has such huge legal & other debts now he is being forced to return to playing just to pay them. Clayton listed 4 teams who could sorta/kinda/maybe be interested in him including the 9ers & Seattle & I think J-ville as mentioned earlier here. I can't speak for the Jags, although I can't imagine any of the other 31 teams not named the Falcons would take him with his baggage, but I live in the Bay Area & can tell you that SF is the most ultraliberal city in the nation. If the 9ers showed any interest in him PeTA & other animal rights organizations would picket the ticket outlets & every home game if he was on the roster, & the same with ultraliberal Seattle too. The US is the most pet-loving nation on the planet & someone with his intolerable baggage would be a PR nightmare for any NFL team trying to sell expensive tickets to fans. No way the 9ers or the Seahawks will go anywhere near Vick.

And any team that puts their uni on him would be forced to surround him with bodyguards as he would be a walking/talking security problem, he has received hundreds of death threats already. Imagine the problem he presents if he became an active player again.

So I voted for a yr's ban, that's the very least he deserves. Let him continue his lecturing to HS students & other groups about the cruelty of dogfighting after the court-ordered span of these has expired, then maybe he could show he has atoned for his long history of this criminal lifestyle. And show all NFL fans he isn't the arrogant lying jerk anymore he's been his whole playing career.

Yes Leonard Little playing now after ringing up a body count from driving drunk is a huge injustice, but it's not a valid comparison with Vick. Little is a case of preferential treatment for celebrity athletes IMO, Vick has been made a example but he deserved all of it.

someone447
05-21-2009, 11:54 AM
That goes back to when I said where is the line?

I have little doubt that if Mike Tyson was a football player instead of a boxer, NFL teams would have shown interest? Do you want a rapist in the league? What if it was a pediphile, but he could give a team 20 sacks? Is that ok?

Where do you, where does the NFL draw the proverbial line in the sand?

To answer your question though... if Goodell says he wants to reinstate him, that's his call and then the team's call. If they go that route, so be it.

There is no line. None at all. As long as they do not bet on their own games they shouldn't be banned permanently. If someone goes to jail, serves his time, and is still good enough to play, just let him play. These guys are paid to play a sport because they are the best in the world. I watch them not for their humanitarian efforts or their character, but for their athletic ability. If Vick still has the ability to play at an NFL level, there is no reason for the commish to not reinstate him.

someone447
05-21-2009, 12:02 PM
I'm also dumbfounded by the people who excuse dogfighting as not being a big deal or it being "just dogs". Maybe it's just me, but there is something inherently evil about cruelty to animals in any form, let alone training them to fight each other and when they are not good enough, put them down in any number of disgusting ways.

And for Vick, I have yet to get the impression that he's sorry for anything except for getting caught.

How many athletes have had domestic abuse issues? How many athletes have hurt or even killed people driving drunk? How many athletes have gotten extra chances after hurting people? Vick hurt dogs, yes it is a disgusting practice, but it is a hell of a lot less disgusting than beating your wife, or being complicit in the paralyzation of a human being.

You also have to realize that dog fighting is accepted in the poor, urban, black culture. It is something that is celebrated. We should fix the culture rather than punishing those who are victims of that culture of violence.

Where is the national outcry against ****-fighting? Where are people protesting the Mexican and Spanish practice of bull fighting? Why are dogs any different? What about people who fight beta fish?

someone447
05-21-2009, 12:08 PM
Dogfighting, financing dogfighting, hanging the losing dogs, spreading STDs, lying repeatedly.....It's shortsighted & just plain silly to believe Vick's crimes start & end with dogfighting or cruelty to animals although that's plenty bad enough & one of the most unforgivable crimes in this day & age. The guy is a pathological liar, the kind who sincerely believes he has done no wrongdoing & can pass polygraphs. Remember this episode, just one of many, from 4-5 yrs. ago:

"Hi there, pretty lady, can I buy you a drink? The name's Mexico, Ron Mexico, & I'm a starting NFL quarterback!" I'll bet those Falcons jerseys with MEXICO on the back are going up in price now on EBay now that Vick is making headlines again. I'll bet this a-hole lied to her about having the herpes she sued him for transmitting to her thru unsafe sex (he settled for 6 figs or more out of court)

He lied with a perfectly straight face to Atlanta owner Arthur Blank about financing the dogfights held on his property, the same illegal fights that were common knowledge throughout Hampton, VA & the Falcons locker room & on which Vick & his friends wagered regularly, also illegal & also lied about. I think Blank was trying to keep the scandal contained by sending his team of pvt. investigators to Virginia to chk. out the rumors before the NFL or law enforcement became involved, he was new to NFL ownership & thought he could keep a lid on it, pretty naive in any case. Anyway Vick was asked about it behind closed doors face to face & he lied. That's why I don't think anyone can believe him now when he says he has remorse over this obvious criminal lifestyle problem as indicated earlier in the thread, I think he's incorrigible & I know I don't believe him.

ESPN speculated yesterday that at some point a desperate team would contact him, even though he requires complete retraining & at least a yr's reps at the QB position to be effective at the NFL level. He has such huge legal & other debts now he is being forced to return to playing just to pay them. Clayton listed 4 teams who could sorta/kinda/maybe be interested in him including the 9ers & Seattle & I think J-ville as mentioned earlier here. I can't speak for the Jags, although I can't imagine any of the other 31 teams not named the Falcons would take him with his baggage, but I live in the Bay Area & can tell you that SF is the most ultraliberal city in the nation. If the 9ers showed any interest in him PeTA & other animal rights organizations would picket the ticket outlets & every home game if he was on the roster, & the same with ultraliberal Seattle too. The US is the most pet-loving nation on the planet & someone with his intolerable baggage would be a PR nightmare for any NFL team trying to sell expensive tickets to fans. No way the 9ers or the Seahawks will go anywhere near Vick.

And any team that puts their uni on him would be forced to surround him with bodyguards as he would be a walking/talking security problem, he has received hundreds of death threats already. Imagine the problem he presents if he became an active player again.

So I voted for a yr's ban, that's the very least he deserves. Let him continue his lecturing to HS students & other groups about the cruelty of dogfighting after the court-ordered span of these has expired, then maybe he could show he has atoned for his long history of this criminal lifestyle. And show all NFL fans he isn't the arrogant lying jerk anymore he's been his whole playing career.

Yes Leonard Little playing now after ringing up a body count from driving drunk is a huge injustice, but it's not a valid comparison with Vick. Little is a case of preferential treatment for celebrity athletes IMO, Vick has been made a example but he deserved all of it.

You do realize the herpes thing was found to be completely fabricated, don't you? That has absolutely no bearing on the dog fighting. Of course he lied about the dog fighting to his boss... Would you tell your boss you like to drink to excess or smoke marijuana? No of course not, it would get you punished. Vick did the same thing 99% of the population would do in that situation.

He fought dogs and financed the operation. That is hardly a criminal lifestyle. How many human deaths or injuries were associated with Vick's dogfighting? 0? That's what I thought. How is dog fighting more unforgivable than the **** that goes on in the streets of any major city?

I actually find the people who say, "Dog fighting is the most despicable thing you can do"(or the like) to be a hell of a lot more ****** up than Vick was. When you put a dogs life over that of a human, and by saying **** like that it is exactly what you are doing, you need some serious help. Why the hell would we spend so much money prosecuting people for dog fighting when we have drug violence in every major city in the country? Why don't we go after real criminals? Why don't we go after those people who are hurting the humans in our country? No instead we put tons of money into investigating Mike Vick and his dog fighting.

Gay Ork Wang
05-21-2009, 12:25 PM
god i bet 90% of the players wouldve lied to try to get away with something. I mean if i did something and someone told me its illegal, i wouldnt just go everywhere and say: hey, u know, i did something illegal, lets throw my ass in jail

sweetness34
05-21-2009, 12:32 PM
god i bet 90% of the players wouldve lied to try to get away with something. I mean if i did something and someone told me its illegal, i wouldnt just go everywhere and say: hey, u know, i did something illegal, lets throw my ass in jail

And that's fine, but you also have to realize lying gets you into more trouble. It's hard to admit doing something wrong, but Mike knew what he was doing when he lied and his sentencing was increased because of it.

Mike would have been best suited to come out and be truthful. Still probably would have faced jail time but not as much.

I can understand lying once to get out of something, I've done it before. But I saw 3 or 4 times when he went on television and denied knowing anything about the dog fighting.

the decider13
05-21-2009, 12:35 PM
He fought dogs and financed the operation. That is hardly a criminal lifestyle. How many human deaths or injuries were associated with Vick's dogfighting? 0? That's what I thought. How is dog fighting more unforgivable than the **** that goes on in the streets of any major city?

I actually find the people who say, "Dog fighting is the most despicable thing you can do"(or the like) to be a hell of a lot more ****** up than Vick was. When you put a dogs life over that of a human, and by saying **** like that it is exactly what you are doing, you need some serious help. Why the hell would we spend so much money prosecuting people for dog fighting when we have drug violence in every major city in the country? Why don't we go after real criminals? Why don't we go after those people who are hurting the humans in our country? No instead we put tons of money into investigating Mike Vick and his dog fighting.
It was his lifestyle, and it was a crime. Criminal lifestyle

You do realize that banning Vick from the sport isn't going to hurt anyone right? You make it sound like if Goodell doesn't let Vick play, he is freeing 10 murders and 8 rapists. He got caught, because someone turned him in. All his friends turned states evidence on him, he was done. We aren't talking about if he should be in jail, that already happened. So quit your damn preaching about how we should be going after "real" criminals.

So should we just let out everyone who isn't a murderer?

Manic Depressant
05-21-2009, 12:36 PM
And that's fine, but you also have to realize lying gets you into more trouble. It's hard to admit doing something wrong, but Mike knew what he was doing when he lied and his sentencing was increased because of it.

Mike would have been best suited to come out and be truthful. Still probably would have faced jail time but not as much.

I can understand lying once to get out of something, I've done it before. But I saw 3 or 4 times when he went on television and denied knowing anything about the dog fighting.

I don't really understand why people are trying to crucify Vick for lying. How many criminals admit guilt as soon as they are charged? That makes no sense at all from a legal standpoint. I'm sure Vick was following his legal representations' advice.

Manic Depressant
05-21-2009, 12:38 PM
It was his lifestyle, and it was a crime. Criminal lifestyle

You do realize that banning Vick from the sport isn't going to hurt anyone right? You make it sound like if Goodell doesn't let Vick play, he is freeing 10 murders and 8 rapists. He got caught, because someone turned him in. All his friends turned states evidence on him, he was done. We aren't talking about if he should be in jail, that already happened. So quit your damn preaching about how we should be going after "real" criminals.

So should we just let out everyone who isn't a murderer?

Huh? The point is that Vick, like every reformed criminal, deserves a chance to integrate himself back into society. Clearly the NFL has shown that it is willing to give players' second chances, so that shouldn't be an issue. People are upset about this because it would be hypocritical to ban Vick for an extended time period when other players have already been given a second chance.

Gay Ork Wang
05-21-2009, 12:44 PM
And that's fine, but you also have to realize lying gets you into more trouble. It's hard to admit doing something wrong, but Mike knew what he was doing when he lied and his sentencing was increased because of it.

Mike would have been best suited to come out and be truthful. Still probably would have faced jail time but not as much.

I can understand lying once to get out of something, I've done it before. But I saw 3 or 4 times when he went on television and denied knowing anything about the dog fighting.
i mean yeah it obviously puts u in a bad position in court. but u cant really blame him. its one of the things most of the people would do. Hindsight is 20-20

badgerbacker
05-21-2009, 12:47 PM
It is very interesting to read the debate people are having and then look at the poll. Looks like an extremely large silent majority wants him back in the league playing.

the decider13
05-21-2009, 12:50 PM
I don't really understand why people are trying to crucify Vick for lying. How many criminals admit guilt as soon as they are charged? That makes no sense at all from a legal standpoint. I'm sure Vick was following his legal representations' advice.

This isn't about a legal standpoint, this is about a league standpoint. He lied to Arthur Blank and Goodell straight up. Anytime a player lies to the commish they get some kind of suspension.

Manic Depressant
05-21-2009, 12:51 PM
This isn't about a legal standpoint, this is about a league standpoint. He lied to Arthur Blank and Goodell straight up. Anytime a player lies to the commish they get some kind of suspension.

Vick has already been suspended...

Also, if he tells Goodell he was involved in dogfighting, he can't just turn around and tell the court that he wasn't. That's why Goodell needs to keep out of these matters until we know if people are guilty or not.

the decider13
05-21-2009, 12:55 PM
Vick has already been suspended...

He was given an indefinate suspension because of his actions that led to his jailing. Even if he wasn't suspended, he couldn't play anyway because he was in jail. He should have to serve at least a year of suspension.

whatadai
05-21-2009, 12:56 PM
It is very interesting to read the debate people are having and then look at the poll. Looks like an extremely large silent majority wants him back in the league playing.

It's not a silent majority. We just find no use in arguing against a very few people who are very close-minded and unforgiving, who in the end will have no say in the decision.

Gay Ork Wang
05-21-2009, 12:58 PM
He was given an indefinate suspension because of his actions that led to his jailing. Even if he wasn't suspended, he couldn't play anyway because he was in jail. He should have to serve at least a year of suspension.
so give him a 3 years suspension?

Manic Depressant
05-21-2009, 12:58 PM
He was given an indefinate suspension because of his actions that led to his jailing. Even if he wasn't suspended, he couldn't play anyway because he was in jail. He should have to serve at least a year of suspension.

He's already served 2 seasons of suspension. The fact that he was incarcerated for some of that time is irrelevant in my opinion.

LizardState
05-21-2009, 12:59 PM
You do realize the herpes thing was found to be completely fabricated, don't you? That has absolutely no bearing on the dog fighting. Of course he lied about the dog fighting to his boss... Would you tell your boss you like to drink to excess or smoke marijuana? No of course not, it would get you punished. Vick did the same thing 99% of the population would do in that situation.

He fought dogs and financed the operation. That is hardly a criminal lifestyle. How many human deaths or injuries were associated with Vick's dogfighting? 0? That's what I thought. How is dog fighting more unforgivable than the **** that goes on in the streets of any major city?

I actually find the people who say, "Dog fighting is the most despicable thing you can do"(or the like) to be a hell of a lot more ****** up than Vick was. When you put a dogs life over that of a human, and by saying **** like that it is exactly what you are doing, you need some serious help. Why the hell would we spend so much money prosecuting people for dog fighting when we have drug violence in every major city in the country? Why don't we go after real criminals? Why don't we go after those people who are hurting the humans in our country? No instead we put tons of money into investigating Mike Vick and his dog fighting.

Putting up your $ to finance illegal activities over a long period of yrs. ISN'T a criminal lifestyle? Do us a favor & look up the word lifestyle before posting.

Maybe dogfighting isn't the worst crime around for which active NFL players have been convicted (like Little) but you'd be pressed to find one that doesn't immediately morph your fans into ex-fans. Cruelty to animals is only slightly below molesting kids as a PR nightmare for a highly profiled pro athlete or celeb, I thought I had made that point. That, his lack of personal credibility about his remorse for this with his track record, & the obvious problems he would present returning to the league.

I too would prefer that we put the max effort into prosecuting the real reprobate criminals who transgress against humans, like the greedy piratical executives at AIG, the Securities & Exchange Commission regulators who shamefully didn't do their jobs & looked the other way so their buddies could get richer, & the ruthless hedge fund mgrs. who trashed the global economy to enrich themselves then asked for Federal bailouts, real scumbags who acted with malice then expected preferential treatment when caught. Just in terms of the scope of the damage & misery they caused it's for those who commit such avaricious crimes with prior knowledge they would get away with it b/c of thier political connections I think the lowest levels are hell are richly reserved. They are the ones only slightly above (below in hell's inverted foodchain) child molesters & serial killers.

Vick's case is going to get top billing b/c it's the offseason & it's a slow NFL news wk & he's a household name convicted with multiple felonies, that simply. And there's a big gap between ESPN speculating that a team will take him & the reality of the risks involved that I outlined in detail. On 2nd thought I would like to chg. my vote to a lifetime NFL ban, Vick was never as good a QB as he thought he was anyway, just ask his former Falcons team mates, they don't have a good word to say about him as a a "team player" b/c he wasn't, he was all about No. 1, Michael Vick, or Ron Mexico...whoever.

I wasn't comparing Vick's crimes to the obvious crimes occurring daily you mentioned in your rant, in fact I deliberately avoided it but I knew when I posted it someone would go off down that road. Human deaths were irrelevant & never p/o the issue at hand, let's get real here.

Vick is without doubt a piece of crap as a human being, his life IMO far lower in value than the lives of the dogs he killed with his own hands for losing & humiliating him, but that's my opinion .... I've met hundreds of people who have done unconscionable things that rates their lives lower than those of animals in my estimation. I know these things, I'm a repentant former hunter & an ASPCA member who has no respect whatever for sick ***** who practice animal sadism. As for Vick's redemption, he will have a long uphill battle to redeem himself with his fans b/c of his past credibility problems, actions speaking louder than words & all that, he s/b spending the rest of his adult life actively trying to put the awful social stigma on dogfighting that he enjoyed making it popular when he pursued it for many yrs.... & that is without a doubt a lifestyle.

It's a shame the Constitutional provision against cruel & unusual punishment applies to Vick b/c he s/b ground up for dogfood. If you defend those who are cruel to animals & have been convicted of same under any circumstances then I believe you're the one who needs help. Seriously.

Gay Ork Wang
05-21-2009, 01:02 PM
i dont see it. people didnt say he shouldnt be convicted. he was. why add more? what does it have to do with football?

the decider13
05-21-2009, 01:03 PM
It's not a silent majority. We just find no use in arguing against a very few people who are very close-minded and unforgiving, who in the end will have no say in the decision.

OoO interesting

So because the majority is one way, the minority are inferior, close minded, and unforgiving? It couldn't just be that we have different opinions?

No one here has a say in the decision unless one of you is secretly the commish.

duckseason
05-21-2009, 02:08 PM
For the league to further punish Michael Vick would not only be hypocritical, it would also amount to double jeopardy.

The man screwed up big. But the time to mete out punishment was on sentencing day. Now that his punishment has been carried out, he is free to continue his life amongst society. For us as a society to further punish him is to carelessly serve a life sentence. No doubt many of us will do just that. Michael Vick may as well be dead to a certain segment. Indeed, many owners of NFL franchises have likely blacklisted him. But for those same owners or any other persons to make the same choice for another employer? No. Michael Vick will soon be a free man, and so are his potential employers. That's how this gets decided. You have a problem with a local restaurant hiring felons? Don't eat there.

But the NFL does hire felons. Lots of them. Whether they've been convicted or not, what should matter to those who deem themselves holier than the majority ought to be concerned with the forbidden act itself rather than the results spewed from a broken judicial system.

So stop consuming the NFL or embrace your hypocrisy. Oh and be sure and be very careful about the meat products you consume as well. Wouldn't want to be a direct supporter of those who violently abuse animals or anything. Wouldn't want to look down from the pulpit with a mouth full of tortured flesh as you villainize those beneath you for doing the same.

Addict
05-21-2009, 02:19 PM
For the league to further punish Michael Vick would not only be hypocritical, it would also amount to double jeopardy.

The man screwed up big. But the time to mete out punishment was on sentencing day. Now that his punishment has been carried out, he is free to continue his life amongst society. For us as a society to further punish him is to carelessly serve a life sentence. No doubt many of us will do just that. Michael Vick may as well be dead to a certain segment. Indeed, many owners of NFL franchises have likely blacklisted him. But for those same owners or any other persons to make the same choice for another employer? No. Michael Vick will soon be a free man, and so are his potential employers. That's how this gets decided. You have a problem with a local restaurant hiring felons? Don't eat there.

But the NFL does hire felons. Lots of them. Whether they've been convicted or not, what should matter to those who deem themselves holier than the majority ought to be concerned with the forbidden act itself rather than the results spewed from a broken judicial system.

So stop consuming the NFL or embrace your hypocrisy. Oh and be sure and be very careful about the meat products you consume as well. Wouldn't want to be a direct supporter of those who violently abuse animals or anything. Wouldn't want to look down from the pulpit with a mouth full of tortured flesh as you villainize those beneath you for doing the same.

like I said, to ban him from society now is essentially rendering the entire justice system of crime and punishment moot.

the decider13
05-21-2009, 02:23 PM
For the league to further punish Michael Vick would not only be hypocritical, it would also amount to double jeopardy.

The man screwed up big. But the time to mete out punishment was on sentencing day. Now that his punishment has been carried out, he is free to continue his life amongst society. For us as a society to further punish him is to carelessly serve a life sentence. No doubt many of us will do just that. Michael Vick may as well be dead to a certain segment. Indeed, many owners of NFL franchises have likely blacklisted him. But for those same owners or any other persons to make the same choice for another employer? No. Michael Vick will soon be a free man, and so are his potential employers. That's how this gets decided. You have a problem with a local restaurant hiring felons? Don't eat there.

But the NFL does hire felons. Lots of them. Whether they've been convicted or not, what should matter to those who deem themselves holier than the majority ought to be concerned with the forbidden act itself rather than the results spewed from a broken judicial system.

So stop consuming the NFL or embrace your hypocrisy. Oh and be sure and be very careful about the meat products you consume as well. Wouldn't want to be a direct supporter of those who violently abuse animals or anything. Wouldn't want to look down from the pulpit with a mouth full of tortured flesh as you villainize those beneath you for doing the same.

At least this post has some substance.

I don't deny that he will probably be reinstated, there aren't really grounds to keep him out. I said he will probably get reinstated in my very first post in here. But that doesn't change the fact that I disagree with it.

I might be a bit of a hypocrit because I'm not a veagan, but I honestly don't care. Chickens and cows don't wait at home for me all day and go crazy when I come home. I've had dogs my entire life, and I have a hard time respecting anyone that can raise an animal just for the sake of killing another animal. All of it for enjoyment.

And I hardly think this is amounts to double jeopardy. Goodell has suspended people for less. All he has to say is that he doesn't think Vick is remorseful and Vick won't be back in the NFL this year.

Addict
05-21-2009, 02:32 PM
At least this post has some substance.

I don't deny that he will probably be reinstated, there aren't really grounds to keep him out. I said he will probably get reinstated in my very first post in here. But that doesn't change the fact that I disagree with it.

I might be a bit of a hypocrit because I'm not a veagan, but I honestly don't care. Chickens and cows don't wait at home for me all day and go crazy when I come home. I've had dogs my entire life, and I have a hard time respecting anyone that can raise an animal just for the sake of killing another animal. All of it for enjoyment.

And I hardly think this is amounts to double jeopardy. Goodell has suspended people for less. All he has to say is that he doesn't think Vick is remorseful and Vick won't be back in the NFL this year.

http://www.cherrylane.com/getattachment/cfd9ca7d-c690-4ad1-9f77-c78e3943066c/Pokemon-USA,-Inc-.aspx

think about it.

Saints-Tigers
05-21-2009, 02:42 PM
Pokemon don't die, they black out, and you take them to the pokemon center and nurse Joy fixes them back to brand new.

Noob :-/

wonderbredd24
05-21-2009, 02:47 PM
http://www.cherrylane.com/getattachment/cfd9ca7d-c690-4ad1-9f77-c78e3943066c/Pokemon-USA,-Inc-.aspx

think about it.

Don't forget poaching too

duckseason
05-21-2009, 02:49 PM
At least this post has some substance.

I don't deny that he will probably be reinstated, there aren't really grounds to keep him out. I said he will probably get reinstated in my very first post in here. But that doesn't change the fact that I disagree with it.
You are certainly free to disagree with whatever you may choose. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. And though it may have appeared so, I wasn't speaking directly to you but rather any and everybody who displays the sort of hypocrisy I was describing.

I might be a bit of a hypocrit because I'm not a veagan, but I honestly don't care. Chickens and cows don't wait at home for me all day and go crazy when I come home. I've had dogs my entire life, and I have a hard time respecting anyone that can raise an animal just for the sake of killing another animal. All of it for enjoyment.
Out of sight out of mind, I suppose. The world only matters as it pertains to us in our own minds. Just as long as you recognize that by your own admission, it has nothing to do with animal cruelty but rather your love for dogs and ignorance of the world around you. Either you're opposed to a certain sort of behavior or you're not. Remember, we're labeling Vick as sick and twisted for the torture he inflicted; not because the victims were any more special than their peers.

And I hardly think this is amounts to double jeopardy. Goodell has suspended people for less. All he has to say is that he doesn't think Vick is remorseful and Vick won't be back in the NFL this year.

To be punished for the same thing twice amounts to double jeopardy. Not only has he served a substantial amount of time in a federal penitentiary and payed a ridiculous monetary price for his mistakes, but the league has already suspended him for the same period of time as well. Further punishment would be excessive.

wonderbredd24
05-21-2009, 02:56 PM
To be punished for the same thing twice amounts to double jeopardy. Not only has he served a substantial amount of time in a federal penitentiary and payed a ridiculous monetary price for his mistakes, but the league has already suspended him for the same period of time as well. Further punishment would be excessive.

This is not double jeopardy. This is life. The man with a record struggles to get a decent job now. Where's the fight for the average ex-con to get a better job?

Why should Michael Vick be so special?

Playing in the NFL is a priveledge, not a right... this post does not seem to know the difference.

Addict
05-21-2009, 03:04 PM
This is not double jeopardy. This is life. The man with a record struggles to get a decent job now. Where's the fight for the average ex-con to get a better job?

Why should Michael Vick be so special?

Playing in the NFL is a priveledge, not a right... this post does not seem to know the difference.

Everyone SHOULD be able to re-participate after serving his sentence. Essentially you do the crime, you do the time and in a perfect world you can lead a normal life.

The fact it doesn't happen in the real world is a tragedy. The fact that it COULD happen for Michael Vick should be considered a great thing. If we've gotten so used to things going wrong we assume it's the right way. So if something would happen the right way we consider it wrong.

People commit a crime; are judged; are punished accordingly; undergo their punishment; are released and given a second chance. It's the way it should go. That it doesn't happen enough is the injustice, not the fact that it's going to happen with Vick.

wonderbredd24
05-21-2009, 03:05 PM
Hypothetical Question:

What if one of the people involved in the murder of Sean Taylor was an NFL calibur player. He served his time; said and did everything to suggest he was remorseful about it.

If he were in Michael Vick's place, would you want him reinstated? Would you be so quick to say it's unfair to not to reinstate him?

wonderbredd24
05-21-2009, 03:07 PM
Everyone SHOULD be able to re-participate after serving his sentence. Essentially you do the crime, you do the time and in a perfect world you can lead a normal life.

The fact it doesn't happen in the real world is a tragedy. The fact that it COULD happen for Michael Vick should be considered a great thing. If we've gotten so used to things going wrong we assume it's the right way. So if something would happen the right way we consider it wrong.

People commit a crime; are judged; are punished accordingly; undergo their punishment; are released and given a second chance. It's the way it should go. That it doesn't happen enough is the injustice, not the fact that it's going to happen with Vick.

Chaulk one up for justice? Seriously? If this wasn't Michael Vick and it was some backup offensive line, would anyone really say this type of stuff?

Addict
05-21-2009, 03:09 PM
Chaulk one up for justice? Seriously? If this wasn't Michael Vick and it was some backup offensive line, would anyone really say this type of stuff?

I would.

and just so we're clear, I'm not a big Vick fan. Personally I prefer pocket QB's to Dual Threats because I think QB's should throw first and run second, not the other way around, or in Vick's case, run, run, run some more, do a heelclick and then throw poorly.

Hypothetical Question:

What if one of the people involved in the murder of Sean Taylor was an NFL calibur player. He served his time; said and did everything to suggest he was remorseful about it.

If he were in Michael Vick's place, would you want him reinstated? Would you be so quick to say it's unfair to not to reinstate him?

I don't know in what universe you live, but in mine people who kill people get a hell of a lot more than two years in jail. So even hypotheticall your question is useless. By the time that person, remorsefull and all, was released he'd be ready for an artificial hip rather than an NFL career.

whatadai
05-21-2009, 03:09 PM
OoO interesting

So because the majority is one way, the minority are inferior, close minded, and unforgiving? It couldn't just be that we have different opinions?

No one here has a say in the decision unless one of you is secretly the commish.
Did I say the minority is inferior? No. Are you guys rejecting every option and argument made in support of Vick, therefore making you close-minded? Yes. Have you forgiven Vick even though he has not harmed you in any way? No. Did I ever say any of us has a part in the decision? No.

Marshall physically assaults a cop, his girlfriend, fiancee, and a couple of other people, all of them HUMAN, yet he deserves to be on your signature. Vick doesn't deserve a second chance when Marshall has been given half a dozen? I'm not saying what Vick did isn't wrong, but what's with this double standard?

someone447
05-21-2009, 03:15 PM
Chaulk one up for justice? Seriously? If this wasn't Michael Vick and it was some backup offensive line, would anyone really say this type of stuff?

Being an ex-con should not preclude anyone from getting a job. They payed their debt to society so they should be allowed any job they are qualified for.

Addict
05-21-2009, 03:16 PM
Being an ex-con should not preclude anyone from getting a job. They payed their debt to society so they should be allowed any job they are qualified for.

yeah that's pretty much what I said.

duckseason
05-21-2009, 03:21 PM
This is not double jeopardy. This is life. The man with a record struggles to get a decent job now. Where's the fight for the average ex-con to get a better job?

Oh I agree that it's not technically double jeopardy. That's why I said it amounts to such.

I also illustrated the inevitability that some people would choose to continue his punishment while others would accept him back into society. That, is real life. Unanimous ostracization is not.

Seems you missed several key points contained within my post.

Why should Michael Vick be so special?

Playing in the NFL is a priveledge, not a right... this post does not seem to know the difference.

Of course playing in the NFL is a privilege. So is any other job where it's up to somebody else whether you're accepted as an employee or not. I never stated or implied anything to the contrary.

It's up to the individual employer to decide whether or not to hire a given individual. To say that Vick should receive a ban from the NFL is to say that employers do not have the right to hire who they choose.

Mr. Hero
05-21-2009, 03:57 PM
This thread really makes me want to re-watch the South Park episode Douche vs. Turd, or maybe Penn & Teller's episode on PETA, that one was actually good.

I mean seriously, mike vick ****** with animals, got punished by the government and the NFL, he's going to get blackballed by a lot of owners and the other owners are likely to avoid him because they know PETA has nothing better to do than go apeshit and harass vick and the team that signs him. I just have to ask the people who would ban him permanently what they think his sentence should've been? Because clearly you guys feel the law doesn't punish people enough, would you be happy if he had spent 5 years behind bars? What about ten? or Life? I mean how much should a person be punished for abusing animals since you guys clearly don't think two years, his entire estate and the additional conditions of his parole, etc., are insufficient.

badgerbacker
05-21-2009, 04:07 PM
Marshall physically assaults a cop, his girlfriend, fiancee, and a couple of other people, all of them HUMAN, yet he deserves to be on your signature. Vick doesn't deserve a second chance when Marshall has been given half a dozen? I'm not saying what Vick did isn't wrong, but what's with this double standard?
Just wanted to make sure this didn't get buried on the bottom of the last page. Absolutely great point and interesting that more outrage hasn't been made about Marshall.

Mr. Hero
05-21-2009, 04:19 PM
Just wanted to make sure this didn't get buried on the bottom of the last page. Absolutely great point and interesting that more outrage hasn't been made about Marshall.

Isn't the answer to the question obvious though? People = bad, pets = good. :confused:

wonderbredd24
05-21-2009, 04:20 PM
Vick did not lose his estate as a condition of the conviction

Mr. Hero
05-21-2009, 04:26 PM
Vick did not lose his estate as a condition of the conviction

But he did lose it as a result of his conviction, thus his punishment was responsible, in part, for his current financial ruin. But fine, if it makes you happier to ignore the consequences of his punishment and focus just on his punishment what would've been enough? Castration?

wonderbredd24
05-21-2009, 04:30 PM
But he did lose it as a result of his conviction, thus his punishment was responsible, in part, for his current financial ruin. But fine, if it makes you happier to ignore the consequences of his punishment and focus just on his punishment what would've been enough? Castration?

Tell the entire story

Mr. Hero
05-21-2009, 04:48 PM
Tell the entire story

Mike Vick pitted lesser beasts against each other for profit, was convicted, spent two years in prison, has had his career de-railed, has lost his fortune and forever be loved by many eco-terrorists. What am I leaving out? That dogs < humans? I thought that was self-evident. *shrug*

BaLLiN
05-21-2009, 04:49 PM
Mike Vick to Jags?

the decider13
05-21-2009, 04:51 PM
Did I say the minority is inferior? No. Are you guys rejecting every option and argument made in support of Vick, therefore making you close-minded? Yes. Have you forgiven Vick even though he has not harmed you in any way? No. Did I ever say any of us has a part in the decision? No.

Marshall physically assaults a cop, his girlfriend, fiancee, and a couple of other people, all of them HUMAN, yet he deserves to be on your signature. Vick doesn't deserve a second chance when Marshall has been given half a dozen? I'm not saying what Vick did isn't wrong, but what's with this double standard?

Fair enough point on Marshall. He is one of my favorite players and has been since he was drafted.

I just don't understand why I have to be constantly attacked for having a different opinion. How is me admitting to things being close minded? I say I am a hypocrit for not being a veagan, yet I still am close minded? Interesting.

Dog fighting is just something that bothers me. I don't have any respect for him as a person, and would rather someone else got a chance in the NFL than someone like Vick.

and yes I played pokemon if you want to attack that too. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61RD48DCKQL._AA280_.jpg

I'll just assume that every single one of your opinions is in line. Everyone is a hypocrit. Everyone has opinions. No reason to attack mine and then act supperior about it.

wonderbredd24
05-21-2009, 04:52 PM
Mike Vick pitted lesser beasts against each other for profit, was convicted, spent two years in prison, has had his career de-railed, has lost his fortune and forever be loved by many eco-terrorists. What am I leaving out? That dogs < humans? I thought that was self-evident. *shrug*

The point I was getting at was how he actually lost his money

Gay Ork Wang
05-21-2009, 05:55 PM
Fair enough point on Marshall. He is one of my favorite players and has been since he was drafted.

I just don't understand why I have to be constantly attacked for having a different opinion. How is me admitting to things being close minded? I say I am a hypocrit for not being a veagan, yet I still am close minded? Interesting.

Dog fighting is just something that bothers me. I don't have any respect for him as a person, and would rather someone else got a chance in the NFL than someone like Vick.

and yes I played pokemon if you want to attack that too. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61RD48DCKQL._AA280_.jpg

I'll just assume that every single one of your opinions is in line. Everyone is a hypocrit. Everyone has opinions. No reason to attack mine and then act supperior about it.
the point is, an opinion is just a way to see something. to bring in an opinion in a discussion to find out what is the best decision or not is useless unless you claim its the right thing to do. If you do that, it becomes an argument and will be dissected to check if it holds any truth. If you insert an opinion into a discussion it becomes an argument. therefore saying its just my opinion after someone else told you what is wrong about it is fine, you can still see it that way, but it means its wrong in that matter and its useless in the discussion.

in this case its a personal grudge from your side and just because he did some stuff to some dogs, its not like the NFL forces teams to sign him. why would he be able to take away the shot of someone else in the NFL? because clearly the teams think he has more to offer than the other person

the decider13
05-21-2009, 06:03 PM
the point is, an opinion is just a way to see something. to bring in an opinion in a discussion to find out what is the best decision or not is useless unless you claim its the right thing to do. If you do that, it becomes an argument and will be dissected to check if it holds any truth. If you insert an opinion into a discussion it becomes an argument. therefore saying its just my opinion after someone else told you what is wrong about it is fine, you can still see it that way, but it means its wrong in that matter and its useless in the discussion.

in this case its a personal grudge from your side and just because he did some stuff to some dogs, its not like the NFL forces teams to sign him. why would he be able to take away the shot of someone else in the NFL? because clearly the teams think he has more to offer than the other person

Fair enough, just didn't like being called closed minded just because I have a differing opinion. I have said multiple times that he will be reinstated, but I personally don't want him to be in the NFL. That is all.

And thus, my participation in this thread is complete

Halsey
05-21-2009, 06:44 PM
It's funny to see the same debates that were going on years ago regarding Vick. You got people with extreme views on both sides. One side wants Vick to never be able to play in the NFL while the other thinks the NFL owes Vick a job that Vick is a Vicktim. The thing is these repetitious debates go nowhere and are just a broken record.

Mr. Hero
05-21-2009, 06:54 PM
It's funny to see the same debates that were going on years ago regarding Vick. You got people with extreme views on both sides. One side wants Vick to never be able to play in the NFL while the other thinks the NFL owes Vick a job that Vick is a Vicktim. The thing is these repetitious debates go nowhere and are just a broken record.

I think few people look at vick as a victim, I mean I do but that's a political debate, most just feel like he's been punished and thus there's no reason to punish him again.

Donno
05-21-2009, 07:18 PM
Thats really not cool that ESPN is outside Vick's home recording his daughter play, his kids should be off limits to record.

Timbathia
05-21-2009, 11:00 PM
I dont understand how all the pro-Vick campaigners in here are equating playing in the NFL to a regular job, and that Vick deserves another chance to play in the NFL because he paid his dues to society.

Rightly or wrongly, when you sign a contract to play in the NFL you are also signing on to become a role model in our society. It is a simple fact that kids idolize NFL players and the behavior of NFL players influences those same kids behavior. That doesnt mean all Vick fans will start hurting dogs, or all Marshall fans beat their girlfriends, or Plax fans shoot themselves in the legs trying to be a pimp-daddy, but it can and will affect some of their attitudes towards things.

The NFL has an obligation to hold its players to a much higher set of standards than other employers in the rest of society. Earning millions of dollars (that come from the pockets of fans) playing a game you love where everything you do is under public scrutiny is a privilege, and with it should come some social responsibility.

If dog-fighting is a problem in parts of society, then banning Vick and hopefully influencing some of the kids in that society away from that practice is a worthwhile result. Saying that being cruel to animals isnt much of a crime as an argument for Vick not being banned is beside the point - last thing we want is kids making decisions for themselves about which laws should and shouldnt be adhered too. Its a law, so abide by it or campaign to have it changed.

It would be hypocritical of the NFL to ban Vick after letting so many other "criminals" play after their indiscretions, but the problem may in fact be with this previous leniency. If the NFL has an opportunity to say to the millions of kids it influences that taking drugs, beating women, carrying concealed weapons, having your posse beat strippers or hosting dog fighting is not acceptable in our society, then I say they should start getting serious and ban more people.

someone447
05-21-2009, 11:53 PM
I dont understand how all the pro-Vick campaigners in here are equating playing in the NFL to a regular job, and that Vick deserves another chance to play in the NFL because he paid his dues to society.

Rightly or wrongly, when you sign a contract to play in the NFL you are also signing on to become a role model in our society. It is a simple fact that kids idolize NFL players and the behavior of NFL players influences those same kids behavior. That doesnt mean all Vick fans will start hurting dogs, or all Marshall fans beat their girlfriends, or Plax fans shoot themselves in the legs trying to be a pimp-daddy, but it can and will affect some of their attitudes towards things.

The NFL has an obligation to hold its players to a much higher set of standards than other employers in the rest of society. Earning millions of dollars (that come from the pockets of fans) playing a game you love where everything you do is under public scrutiny is a privilege, and with it should come some social responsibility.

If dog-fighting is a problem in parts of society, then banning Vick and hopefully influencing some of the kids in that society away from that practice is a worthwhile result. Saying that being cruel to animals isnt much of a crime as an argument for Vick not being banned is beside the point - last thing we want is kids making decisions for themselves about which laws should and shouldnt be adhered too. Its a law, so abide by it or campaign to have it changed.

It would be hypocritical of the NFL to ban Vick after letting so many other "criminals" play after their indiscretions, but the problem may in fact be with this previous leniency. If the NFL has an opportunity to say to the millions of kids it influences that taking drugs, beating women, carrying concealed weapons, having your posse beat strippers or hosting dog fighting is not acceptable in our society, then I say they should start getting serious and ban more people.

It is just like any other job and should be treated as such. If an NFL team doesn't want to sign an ex-con I have no problem with that, just as I have no problem if any business refuses to hire an ex-con. But the NFL doesn't pay their salaries, the teams do. It should be up to the team to decide if he can come back, since he already paid his dues.

Personally, I do want kids questioning which laws need to be obeyed. I want people questioning everything.

How many people has banning marijuana kept from smoking it? Not many. Making things illegal barely changes the amount of people who do it. It just changes the openness of it. The only thing that will help stop dog fighting is to change the culture of violence in poor urban areas.

Athletes are only role models because parents are so damn bad in this country. My favorite athlete growing up was Brett Favre. He was an alcoholic and a vicodin addict. That didn't influence me because my parents were worth a damn.

The only responsibility the NFL has is to put on the best show they can. They do not need to send any messages, that is not their place. They are entertainers, nothing more, nothing less. The get paid for their ability to play a game, for their ability to entertain us. Let them entertain us and leave all the personal out of it.

RCAChainGang
05-22-2009, 12:15 AM
It is just like any other job and should be treated as such. If an NFL team doesn't want to sign an ex-con I have no problem with that, just as I have no problem if any business refuses to hire an ex-con. But the NFL doesn't pay their salaries, the teams do. It should be up to the team to decide if he can come back, since he already paid his dues.

Personally, I do want kids questioning which laws need to be obeyed. I want people questioning everything.

How many people has banning marijuana kept from smoking it? Not many. Making things illegal barely changes the amount of people who do it. It just changes the openness of it. The only thing that will help stop dog fighting is to change the culture of violence in poor urban areas.

Athletes are only role models because parents are so damn bad in this country. My favorite athlete growing up was Brett Favre. He was an alcoholic and a vicodin addict. That didn't influence me because my parents were worth a damn.

The only responsibility the NFL has is to put on the best show they can. They do not need to send any messages, that is not their place. They are entertainers, nothing more, nothing less. The get paid for their ability to play a game, for their ability to entertain us. Let them entertain us and leave all the personal out of it.

Completely agreed. I don't think Vick is a quality guy or that he should be let off the hook. But he's been in jail and if he is still worth anything than I'm fine with a team picking him up. Football players being role models is gonna get you nowhere. A good amount of football players are doing things they shouldn't be doing. But thats life! Mike doesn't deserve to be put under a microscope just because he is a good football player. If he's still worth anything go play if not then get a job at McDonalds. If parents are complaining about his influence then that just shows they have none. Poor parenting is being blamed on a guy who screwed up. Life is never perfect. I always loved Marvin Harrison but I was disgusted to see him get in a fight in Philly. Life goes on though. No biggie, he's gonna be playing for some other team or retire and have tons of money. Football players shouldn't be role models.

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
05-22-2009, 05:34 AM
It's funny how people keep saying that if Vick can't hook on with another team, his best opportunities for employment would be working a construction job,( I'm certain Vick would open his own construction firm before he worked fulltime as an hourly wage laborer), or McDonald's.

Vick is still a millionaire, he just filed bankruptcy to keep the people he owes money off his back.
But if Mike doesn't make it back to the NFL, pretty soon he's gonna be strapped for cash.

eaglesalltheway
05-22-2009, 06:42 AM
Fair enough point on Marshall. He is one of my favorite players and has been since he was drafted.

I just don't understand why I have to be constantly attacked for having a different opinion. How is me admitting to things being close minded? I say I am a hypocrit for not being a veagan, yet I still am close minded? Interesting.

Dog fighting is just something that bothers me. I don't have any respect for him as a person, and would rather someone else got a chance in the NFL than someone like Vick.

and yes I played pokemon if you want to attack that too. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61RD48DCKQL._AA280_.jpg

I'll just assume that every single one of your opinions is in line. Everyone is a hypocrit. Everyone has opinions. No reason to attack mine and then act supperior about it.

Every single person in teh world is a hypocrit, its just a matter of, to what extent.- That's just something I've realized as I've gotten older.

Now I don't like dog fighting as much as anyone else, and I don't understand why Brandon Marshall hasn't had at least similar consequences because of his actions. Maybe its because his actions havn't resulted in death, but it still is a dangerous situation when you have to deal with something like that.

eaglesalltheway
05-22-2009, 06:46 AM
It also should be said that when Vick filed for bankruptcy, his plan was to keep two of his houses and three of his cars. i heard on the radio this morning the judge denied that... So Vick may have less money now, but lets face it, he certainly isn't struggling to find money.

Mr. Hero
05-22-2009, 12:22 PM
I dont understand how all the pro-Vick campaigners in here are equating playing in the NFL to a regular job, and that Vick deserves another chance to play in the NFL because he paid his dues to society.

Rightly or wrongly, when you sign a contract to play in the NFL you are also signing on to become a role model in our society. It is a simple fact that kids idolize NFL players and the behavior of NFL players influences those same kids behavior. That doesnt mean all Vick fans will start hurting dogs, or all Marshall fans beat their girlfriends, or Plax fans shoot themselves in the legs trying to be a pimp-daddy, but it can and will affect some of their attitudes towards things.

The NFL has an obligation to hold its players to a much higher set of standards than other employers in the rest of society. Earning millions of dollars (that come from the pockets of fans) playing a game you love where everything you do is under public scrutiny is a privilege, and with it should come some social responsibility.

If dog-fighting is a problem in parts of society, then banning Vick and hopefully influencing some of the kids in that society away from that practice is a worthwhile result. Saying that being cruel to animals isnt much of a crime as an argument for Vick not being banned is beside the point - last thing we want is kids making decisions for themselves about which laws should and shouldnt be adhered too. Its a law, so abide by it or campaign to have it changed.

It would be hypocritical of the NFL to ban Vick after letting so many other "criminals" play after their indiscretions, but the problem may in fact be with this previous leniency. If the NFL has an opportunity to say to the millions of kids it influences that taking drugs, beating women, carrying concealed weapons, having your posse beat strippers or hosting dog fighting is not acceptable in our society, then I say they should start getting serious and ban more people.

This isn't a personal attack but I disagree with this post more than almost any I've read since my latest comeback. Playing in teh NFL is just a regular job, it's just a job in entertainment. Players should not be role models, some could be but those are the exceptions, players have simple responsibilities, to entertain us and help their teams win. Everything else is secondary, and if your fear is that some kids will idolize vick and follow down his path then a) their parents have failed as parents, and b) there have been worse people idolized in this country. I find it absurd that we act as though our population is so mentally weak that seeing a pro-athlete who's a despicable human being can corrupt them.

You really have a poor understanding of how well prohibition works if you believe that banning something, or someone for doing something will significantly impact how the populace at large react to that action.

And if there's one thing I would like to see kids learn it is that they must question everything and every law, there is no justice in enforcing unjust laws, thus every person needs to determine for themselves what they believe to be just and unjust laws. Eliminating that critical thinking would be one of the worst things this country has done, easily on par with such horrors as slavery or the nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki.

My post wasn't well structured or organized but I just woke up, so I'm just going to re-emphasize that I disagree with practically every word in that post.

FlyingElvis
05-22-2009, 12:44 PM
With 10+ years experience at an emergency vet, what Vick did thoroughly disgusts me.

That said, other players guilty of acts that also disgust me have been given another chance to play. I see no reason why Vick shouldn't be afforded a similar chance.

If every drunk driving, wife-beating, drug abusing douche was handed a perma-ban by the NFL I would fully support that penalty. But that's not the case so it's only fair, imo, to reinstate Vick.

someone447
05-22-2009, 12:48 PM
With 10+ years experience at an emergency vet, what Vick did thoroughly disgusts me.

That said, other players guilty of acts that also disgust me have been given another chance to play. I see no reason why Vick shouldn't be afforded a similar chance.

If every drunk driving, wife-beating, drug abusing douche was handed a perma-ban by the NFL I would fully support that penalty. But that's not the case so it's only fair, imo, to reinstate Vick.

See, while I disagree with this view, I can at least respect this opinion. It's the people who think Vick should be banned, all the while ignoring all the violence against humans that goes on that drive me crazy.

OregonDucks
05-22-2009, 01:11 PM
I said he should be reinstated. Everyone deserves a second chance.

Timbathia
05-22-2009, 06:48 PM
This isn't a personal attack but I disagree with this post more than almost any I've read since my latest comeback. Playing in teh NFL is just a regular job, it's just a job in entertainment. Players should not be role models, some could be but those are the exceptions, players have simple responsibilities, to entertain us and help their teams win. Everything else is secondary, and if your fear is that some kids will idolize vick and follow down his path then a) their parents have failed as parents, and b) there have been worse people idolized in this country. I find it absurd that we act as though our population is so mentally weak that seeing a pro-athlete who's a despicable human being can corrupt them.

You really have a poor understanding of how well prohibition works if you believe that banning something, or someone for doing something will significantly impact how the populace at large react to that action.

And if there's one thing I would like to see kids learn it is that they must question everything and every law, there is no justice in enforcing unjust laws, thus every person needs to determine for themselves what they believe to be just and unjust laws. Eliminating that critical thinking would be one of the worst things this country has done, easily on par with such horrors as slavery or the nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki.

My post wasn't well structured or organized but I just woke up, so I'm just going to re-emphasize that I disagree with practically every word in that post.

And I disagree with almost every word in yours (nothing personal though). Dont try and tell me that the Paris Hiltons, Tiger Woods and Michael Vicks of this world dont influence kids. IMO you are flat out wrong if that is what you are saying (for a start why do they get endorsements if they dont?). Should NFL players be role models? No, I dont believe they should - but they are, since they are in the spotlight and to say their attitudes towards things has no affect on the wider populace is again IMO (and many psychologists) plain wrong.

You dont think the population is mentally weak?????? Again, I disagree to a large extent. Everything influences the way the mainstream population thinks. Hell, if Woody Paige writes an article in the Denverpost then the next day I hear numerous people quoting his thoughts as their own. Most of the population is not capable of critical thinking as you have suggested. Have you heard the average person discuss politics before an election? Most people are only capable of forming opinions by agreeing or disagreeing with other peoples opinions - and I believe you are naive to think this is not the case.

The NFL is about entertainment, and it has to weigh up the benefits of playing criminals in its league. IMO a high-profile athlete being banned for life has a better chance at making a point in mainstream society than allowing him to return and reclaim his hero status.

Gay Ork Wang
05-22-2009, 06:56 PM
yes actually they are capable of critical thinking. they determined what they heard is true. just because they quote something doesnt mean they didnt think about it.

Timbathia
05-22-2009, 07:34 PM
yes actually they are capable of critical thinking. they determined what they heard is true. just because they quote something doesnt mean they didnt think about it.

Please dont confuse agreeing with something that sounds plausible as critical thinking. It takes most PhD students at least 2 years to develop the ability for critical thinking, and some unfortunately never develop it properly. People tend to agree with the most compelling opinion they hear in the news or from a colleague, they almost never spent the time and effort to examine and understand the topic and then come to their own conclusion.

Mr. Hero
05-22-2009, 09:45 PM
And I disagree with almost every word in yours (nothing personal though). Dont try and tell me that the Paris Hiltons, Tiger Woods and Michael Vicks of this world dont influence kids. IMO you are flat out wrong if that is what you are saying (for a start why do they get endorsements if they dont?). Should NFL players be role models? No, I dont believe they should - but they are, since they are in the spotlight and to say their attitudes towards things has no affect on the wider populace is again IMO (and many psychologists) plain wrong.

You dont think the population is mentally weak?????? Again, I disagree to a large extent. Everything influences the way the mainstream population thinks. Hell, if Woody Paige writes an article in the Denverpost then the next day I hear numerous people quoting his thoughts as their own. Most of the population is not capable of critical thinking as you have suggested. Have you heard the average person discuss politics before an election? Most people are only capable of forming opinions by agreeing or disagreeing with other peoples opinions - and I believe you are naive to think this is not the case.

The NFL is about entertainment, and it has to weigh up the benefits of playing criminals in its league. IMO a high-profile athlete being banned for life has a better chance at making a point in mainstream society than allowing him to return and reclaim his hero status.

From my experience more people are capable of critical thinking than aren't. Now I'm not saying that much of the population isn't ********, I'm just saying that the majority isn't. I just know from having discussed politics with a lot of people who aren't really experts and don't follow politics nearly as closely as myself. Sure you'll have the mindless supporters who are only good for chanting slogans, but again I think they are out numbered by the thinkers who are just more quiet and less passionate, add that more reasonable views are less entertaining and you see why these people get little attention from the media prior to elections.

As for role-models that should be left entirely to the population, sure some people look up to dumbasses like paris, but you're not going to help those fools by protecting them from their folly.

someone447
05-23-2009, 12:21 AM
Please dont confuse agreeing with something that sounds plausible as critical thinking. It takes most PhD students at least 2 years to develop the ability for critical thinking, and some unfortunately never develop it properly. People tend to agree with the most compelling opinion they hear in the news or from a colleague, they almost never spent the time and effort to examine and understand the topic and then come to their own conclusion.

Umm, congratulations on completely making up facts. I haven't taken any courses above an undergrad level and I have been able to think critically for years.

I will agree that most people don't think critically, but that doesn't mean they don't have the ability to think critically.

The Legend
05-23-2009, 02:07 AM
Anyone else see him getting out of the car on NFLN?
He looked around 235lbs I think he played around 210
So i think he needs to lose so weight.

Gay Ork Wang
05-23-2009, 04:42 AM
Please dont confuse agreeing with something that sounds plausible as critical thinking. It takes most PhD students at least 2 years to develop the ability for critical thinking, and some unfortunately never develop it properly. People tend to agree with the most compelling opinion they hear in the news or from a colleague, they almost never spent the time and effort to examine and understand the topic and then come to their own conclusion.
everyone thinks critically about anything. you never just take an opinion. you always think about the stuff u said or just heard. its not like Kant said in his enlightment essay. u cant just take an opinion without thinking. i mean if everyone would take on the "right" opinion or stance in an argument in your eyes, the guys did critical thinking, am i correct? its really just a lame argument, rather than telling the guy what he is doing wrong, where he is doing a logical mistake, you just say: oh your just to dumb and dont think.

The Legend
05-23-2009, 05:53 AM
everyone thinks critically about anything. you never just take an opinion. you always think about the stuff u said. its not like Kant said in his enlightment essay. u cant just take an opinion without thinking. i mean if everyone would take on the "right" opinion or stance in an argument in your eyes, the guys did critical thinking, am i correct? its really just a lame argument, rather tell the guy what he is doing wrong, where he is doing a logical mistake than just say: oh your just to dumb and dont think.

This can be used in many phases of life my friend. nice.. nice job GOW

someone447
05-23-2009, 09:53 AM
everyone thinks critically about anything. you never just take an opinion. you always think about the stuff u said or just heard. its not like Kant said in his enlightment essay. u cant just take an opinion without thinking. i mean if everyone would take on the "right" opinion or stance in an argument in your eyes, the guys did critical thinking, am i correct? its really just a lame argument, rather than telling the guy what he is doing wrong, where he is doing a logical mistake, you just say: oh your just to dumb and dont think.

Not everyone thinks critically, everyone thinks.

Gay Ork Wang
05-23-2009, 10:30 AM
if you think about something you automatically think about it critically no?

i mean as soon as a person joins a discussion, he is doing critical thinking as of determining his belief is the right one. if he didnt, he would just take your opinion

someone447
05-23-2009, 11:17 AM
if you think about something you automatically think about it critically no?

i mean as soon as a person joins a discussion, he is doing critical thinking as of determining his belief is the right one. if he didnt, he would just take your opinion

Not at all, most people go with their gut reaction and won't change it for anything. Most people don't truly think about anything, they just use their first thought. Thinking critically means examining every side of an argument and coming to a conclusion based on facts.

Timbathia
05-23-2009, 11:36 AM
if you think about something you automatically think about it critically no?

i mean as soon as a person joins a discussion, he is doing critical thinking as of determining his belief is the right one. if he didnt, he would just take your opinion

You are missing the point and perhaps you should google critical thinking before you continue on in this thread (I would even be happy for you to use wikipedia in this case though I would never let my students hear that). A key aspect (one of many) is recognising that you have subconscious biases and should question any reflective judgements. This is not something that the general public does as a matter of course.

Many people generally only listen to other peoples opinions on important topics and decide which sounds more right to them. This hardly makes that opinion correct, it just means it was more compelling to that individual person - which means that the media and "role models" can heavily influence peoples thinking.

Timbathia
05-23-2009, 11:39 AM
Umm, congratulations on completely making up facts. I haven't taken any courses above an undergrad level and I have been able to think critically for years.

I will agree that most people don't think critically, but that doesn't mean they don't have the ability to think critically.

I guess in my experience it is a learned skill, not generally something people just know how to do. If you have ever read the first draft of a PhD students literature review then I am sure you would agree with me that it is not something they typically do well.

someone447
05-23-2009, 11:44 AM
I guess in my experience it is a learned skill, not generally something people just know how to do. If you have ever read the first draft of a PhD students literature review then I am sure you would agree with me that it is not something they typically do well.

There is a huge difference between critical thinking and being able to express your views. I think that is where you are getting that from. I am definitely capable of critical thought, and I do it all the time. However, I am not very good at expressing my thoughts in an academic context.

Gay Ork Wang
05-23-2009, 11:54 AM
Many people generally only listen to other peoples opinions on important topics and decide which sounds more right to them. This hardly makes that opinion correct, it just means it was more compelling to that individual person - which means that the media and "role models" can heavily influence peoples thinking.
well yes, but in the end its still the person who decides. I mean how does he decide? how does me decide which sounds more right to them or more compelling? They dissect it themselves.

someone447
05-23-2009, 12:24 PM
well yes, but in the end its still the person who decides. I mean how does he decide? how does me decide which sounds more right to them or more compelling? They dissect it themselves.

Ask someone why they believe something. Odds are, they won't have an answer to tell you. Most people do not think critically in any way, shape, or form. If you have ever discussed politics, religion, or philosophy with people you would understand the vast majority of them do not think critically. They just accept without question.

This is the same discussion we were having in the philosophy thread. People are afraid to think critically, they are afraid of what will come up if they do.

Gay Ork Wang
05-23-2009, 12:27 PM
i dont understand, that would mean, if you tell them another belief, wouldnt that make them change their views? i mean they have at least one reason to believe what they believe. they dont need to be right, they might have dumb reasons, but they thought about it and tried to make sense to it themselves. They thought about it critically but just not enough

someone447
05-23-2009, 01:01 PM
i dont understand, that would mean, if you tell them another belief, wouldnt that make them change their views? i mean they have at least one reason to believe what they believe. they dont need to be right, they might have dumb reasons, but they thought about it and tried to make sense to it themselves. They thought about it critically but just not enough

The thing is, most people don't even know why they believe things. If you answer, they just say because. You are confusing thinking with thinking critically.

Read this and tell me everyone does it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Gay Ork Wang
05-23-2009, 01:07 PM
if that person has interest in that subject yes. If he doesnt, well he doesnt have any belief in that subject. its the question to what degree that person does this. how good he is at it. but i believe everyone does it

datchapin
05-27-2009, 03:54 PM
before I post my opinion on Vick, I'm gonna drop my two scents on the critical thinking thing. Everyone thinks, duh. Not everyone is critical in how they think. Nor are they critical in every aspect of their lives. You look at christians and ask any # of them, how can fate and free will co-exist and none of their answers will stand up. If they did critical thinking about this it would change their views. No doubt about it and if they didn't stop thinking critically their whole belief structure would crumble. I'm a critical thinker, and one thing I've learned is that it's not a good thing, you gotta let **** slide, for the sake of sanity.

Addict
05-27-2009, 03:59 PM
before I post my opinion on Vick, I'm gonna drop my two scents on the critical thinking thing. Everyone thinks, duh. Not everyone is critical in how they think. Nor are they critical in every aspect of their lives. You look at christians and ask any # of them, how can fate and free will co-exist and none of their answers will stand up. If they did critical thinking about this it would change their views. No doubt about it and if they didn't stop thinking critically their whole belief structure would crumble. I'm a critical thinker, and one thing I've learned is that it's not a good thing, you gotta let **** slide, for the sake of sanity.

Critical thinking and religion aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not religious but it's not hard to see that religion does teach something very valuable. Not to take every aspect of whetever holy book literally is key to any religion. Fundamentalism is bad in every way.
Critical thinking is simply thinking for yourself, and not blindly copy the opinions of others. It's not done enough, in anything. Politics, anything. It's all follow the leader and for heaven's sake don't think twice about anything. The only thing society wants it's people to think about these days is wether they want their Coca Cola regular or light. A smart people is feared by it's government. Dumb people fear their government.

datchapin
05-27-2009, 04:20 PM
Dammit, I really wanted to get into this, but I'm short on time so here goes. The thing that's being overlooked here isn't that Vick committed a crime, it's the scope of it. Wife-beaters rapists those are sick crimes. However what Vick did wasn't a crime of impulse, that should be the major sticking point. The point should be that the guy ran an illegal nation wide racket. He put a ton of investments into it. The guy went out of his way not only to satisfy his desires, but to profit off them. He brought together many like minded individuals and conducted a shady business. While he was doing all this he perpetrated a facade of good citizenship. It's not the fact that it was dog-fighting, to me anyways, that was just one of the choices that led him to where he is. Had he different prefrences he could have been running a prostitution racket, arms smuggling, drug trafficking any number of illicit activities. He completely disregarded the laws, slapped them in their faces and then when cornered offered an apology. He's not sorry, maybe sorry he was caught.

Letting this guy play again would be a mistake. I don't care about the role model stuff, it's a lesson on how society works. What is and isn't acceptable. You want your kids growing up thinking its okay to say f- the law, even if I'm convicted thanks to others sympathy I can still be scum and live a good life. That the desire to be entertained should be put before morals? Gee I don't.

Oh and by the way, Vick wasn't that good of a QB anyways. Thanks to the Falcons getting screwed by him and Petrino the Falcons are now serious contenders.

datchapin
05-27-2009, 04:28 PM
Critical thinking and religion aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not religious but it's not hard to see that religion does teach something very valuable. Not to take every aspect of whetever holy book literally is key to any religion. Fundamentalism is bad in every way.
Critical thinking is simply thinking for yourself, and not blindly copy the opinions of others. It's not done enough, in anything. Politics, anything. It's all follow the leader and for heaven's sake don't think twice about anything. The only thing society wants it's people to think about these days is wether they want their Coca Cola regular or light. A smart people is feared by it's government. Dumb people fear their government.

I never said they were exclusive. Only used it as an example. Not taking thinks literally, not thinking to critically is a key. Basically you put what I said into different words. Thinking for oneself does not make it critical. Questioning your own thoughts and beliefs and those of those around you is. How far your willing to question determines how critical of a thinker you are.

TitleTown088
05-27-2009, 04:38 PM
The only thing society wants it's people to think about these days is wether they want their Coca Cola regular or light.

haha, You're European for shizzle. I found it funny how it was called " light" over there.

Addict
05-27-2009, 05:56 PM
haha, You're European for shizzle. I found it funny how it was called " light" over there.

oh damn I forgot you North Americans call it 'Diet'... which makes about as much sense as calling it 'Light' I guess... eh well you got the point ;)

Mr. Hero
05-27-2009, 06:02 PM
Dammit, I really wanted to get into this, but I'm short on time so here goes. The thing that's being overlooked here isn't that Vick committed a crime, it's the scope of it. Wife-beaters rapists those are sick crimes. However what Vick did wasn't a crime of impulse, that should be the major sticking point. The point should be that the guy ran an illegal nation wide racket. He put a ton of investments into it. The guy went out of his way not only to satisfy his desires, but to profit off them. He brought together many like minded individuals and conducted a shady business. While he was doing all this he perpetrated a facade of good citizenship. It's not the fact that it was dog-fighting, to me anyways, that was just one of the choices that led him to where he is. Had he different prefrences he could have been running a prostitution racket, arms smuggling, drug trafficking any number of illicit activities. He completely disregarded the laws, slapped them in their faces and then when cornered offered an apology. He's not sorry, maybe sorry he was caught.

Letting this guy play again would be a mistake. I don't care about the role model stuff, it's a lesson on how society works. What is and isn't acceptable. You want your kids growing up thinking its okay to say f- the law, even if I'm convicted thanks to others sympathy I can still be scum and live a good life. That the desire to be entertained should be put before morals? Gee I don't.

Oh and by the way, Vick wasn't that good of a QB anyways. Thanks to the Falcons getting screwed by him and Petrino the Falcons are now serious contenders.

Well without turning this into a political discussion we've discussed, or at least tried to discuss, the merits of questioning the law. Personally I would hope that my grandkids say **** the law and then think about whether following the law does or doesn't make sense to them, is the law just or not, are the reprecussions of being caught severe enough to make them follow an unjust law, is the law unjust enough to be worth the consequences, those are the questions I want my grandkids and everyone else's grandkid's asking.

Addict
05-27-2009, 06:12 PM
Well without turning this into a political discussion we've discussed, or at least tried to discuss, the merits of questioning the law. Personally I would hope that my grandkids say **** the law and then think about whether following the law does or doesn't make sense to them, is the law just or not, are the reprecussions of being caught severe enough to make them follow an unjust law, is the law unjust enough to be worth the consequences, those are the questions I want my grandkids and everyone else's grandkid's asking.

Questioning anything really. As a whole species humanity builds systems in which to function. Anything from laws to political systems to economic systems down to the way children are raised and tought. Everything has a system (or, was we like to call it to make it sound less authoritarian: the right way to do things) these systems do vary depending on which global culture you belong to.

Now the thing is that some systems have been in place and sort of functioning for so long that changing (or in some cases the better option (IMO): abolish) these systems is considered silly and stupid and most people struggle to comprehend what you're saying. I'm not saying that others aren't intelligent enough to capture my grand plans or whatever, au contraire. I'm more likely not doing a great job explaining it. The point I'm trying to articulate (and doing a piss-poor job if I do say so myself) is that the most important thing about critical thinking is to realize that nothing about our society is unchangable, everything that is society has at some point in time been devised by people just like us. Think outside the box, establish what about the box needs fixing, get back in the box and fix it from the inside out.

yeah I don't really think anyone is gonna understand this post. I'm not sure I understand it. My brain hurts

Mr. Hero
05-27-2009, 06:25 PM
I got you baby

Addict
05-27-2009, 06:26 PM
I got you baby

hooray for being semi-coherent!

Mr. Hero
05-27-2009, 06:30 PM
hooray for being semi-coherent!

I think it might just be because I agree with the sentiment, so I understand what you were saying, I can't guarantee that me understanding is a sign of semi-coherency.

TimD
05-27-2009, 06:53 PM
He paid his "debt to society" as far as the United State Justice System is concerned. This should allow him to play. You can't punish someone twice for something.

On the other hand the NFL is a business and it is up to them who they allow to be apart of their business.

Timbathia
05-27-2009, 06:54 PM
Questioning anything really. As a whole species humanity builds systems in which to function. Anything from laws to political systems to economic systems down to the way children are raised and tought. Everything has a system (or, was we like to call it to make it sound less authoritarian: the right way to do things) these systems do vary depending on which global culture you belong to.

Now the thing is that some systems have been in place and sort of functioning for so long that changing (or in some cases the better option (IMO): abolish) these systems is considered silly and stupid and most people struggle to comprehend what you're saying. I'm not saying that others aren't intelligent enough to capture my grand plans or whatever, au contraire. I'm more likely not doing a great job explaining it. The point I'm trying to articulate (and doing a piss-poor job if I do say so myself) is that the most important thing about critical thinking is to realize that nothing about our society is unchangable, everything that is society has at some point in time been devised by people just like us. Think outside the box, establish what about the box needs fixing, get back in the box and fix it from the inside out.

yeah I don't really think anyone is gonna understand this post. I'm not sure I understand it. My brain hurts

I dont want to get into this debate, though it is an interesting one - and very relevant in the majority of countries in the world to larger degrees than the US.

HOWEVER, Vick wasnt trying to change or question anything. He was just blatantly breaking the law on a fairly grand scale. If you dont agree with something - you work to get it changed (thats what I hope you teach your kids and grandkids anyway). Please think about the implications of a society where everyone just ignores the laws they dont agree with (in my head is the picture of some skinhead randomly shooting black people because he feels they are lesser people and the murder law shouldnt apply to them - not that I in any way agree with this). Society would not function at all if everyone took the Vick approach to laws they didnt like.

Addict
05-27-2009, 07:00 PM
I dont want to get into this debate, though it is an interesting one - and very relevant in the majority of countries in the world to larger degrees than the US.

HOWEVER, Vick wasnt trying to change or question anything. He was just blatantly breaking the law on a fairly grand scale. If you dont agree with something - you work to get it changed (thats what I hope you teach your kids and grandkids anyway). Please think about the implications of a society where everyone just ignores the laws they dont agree with (in my head is the picture of some skinhead randomly shooting black people because he feels they are lesser people and the murder law shouldnt apply to them - not that I in any way agree with this). Society would not function at all if everyone took the Vick approach to laws they didnt like.

I really wasn't making a point related to Vick anymore. I got a little carried away. But what I said goes for humanity as a whole, and is equally relevant to the US as it is to any other society.

someone447
05-27-2009, 08:02 PM
Dammit, I really wanted to get into this, but I'm short on time so here goes. The thing that's being overlooked here isn't that Vick committed a crime, it's the scope of it. Wife-beaters rapists those are sick crimes. However what Vick did wasn't a crime of impulse, that should be the major sticking point. The point should be that the guy ran an illegal nation wide racket. He put a ton of investments into it. The guy went out of his way not only to satisfy his desires, but to profit off them. He brought together many like minded individuals and conducted a shady business. While he was doing all this he perpetrated a facade of good citizenship. It's not the fact that it was dog-fighting, to me anyways, that was just one of the choices that led him to where he is. Had he different prefrences he could have been running a prostitution racket, arms smuggling, drug trafficking any number of illicit activities. He completely disregarded the laws, slapped them in their faces and then when cornered offered an apology. He's not sorry, maybe sorry he was caught.

Letting this guy play again would be a mistake. I don't care about the role model stuff, it's a lesson on how society works. What is and isn't acceptable. You want your kids growing up thinking its okay to say f- the law, even if I'm convicted thanks to others sympathy I can still be scum and live a good life. That the desire to be entertained should be put before morals? Gee I don't.

Oh and by the way, Vick wasn't that good of a QB anyways. Thanks to the Falcons getting screwed by him and Petrino the Falcons are now serious contenders.

He already served his time, while I don't think it should be illegal, I am not against him serving time because he knew the risks when he started it. But he has completed what our legal system deemed to be his debt to society, so he should be free to partake in whatever career he is qualified for.

someone447
05-27-2009, 08:04 PM
I dont want to get into this debate, though it is an interesting one - and very relevant in the majority of countries in the world to larger degrees than the US.

HOWEVER, Vick wasnt trying to change or question anything. He was just blatantly breaking the law on a fairly grand scale. If you dont agree with something - you work to get it changed (thats what I hope you teach your kids and grandkids anyway). Please think about the implications of a society where everyone just ignores the laws they dont agree with (in my head is the picture of some skinhead randomly shooting black people because he feels they are lesser people and the murder law shouldnt apply to them - not that I in any way agree with this). Society would not function at all if everyone took the Vick approach to laws they didnt like.

If someone breaks the law they should be punished according to the law. But it is their choice to break the law. I do not believe someone is wrong for breaking the law, rather I think someone is wrong because what they did was wrong, not because it was illegal.

FlyingElvis
05-28-2009, 09:18 AM
. . . You want your kids growing up thinking its okay to say f- the law, even if I'm convicted thanks to others sympathy I can still be scum and live a good life. That the desire to be entertained should be put before morals? Gee I don't.
It is not the responsibility of Vick, society, the government or written laws to raise my kid. It is entirely my responsibility to explain to my son just how big a POS Vick is and how despicable an act he committed. The question about his return is simple - everyone in life gets a second chance and, unfortunately, sometimes a 3rd and 4th.

Without examples of wrong it is difficult to teach what is right.

So for you it would be paramount to teach your kid that it is wrong that Vick is re-instated because entertainment should not be valued over morals. It is sound and commendable logic, though I disagree that Vick is worse than someone who beats their wife or kills someone while driving drunk. Neither of those crimes are accidental, one-time transgressions. All three are chronic, habitual behaviors.


He already served his time, while I don't think it should be illegal, I am not against him serving time because he knew the risks when he started it. But he has completed what our legal system deemed to be his debt to society, so he should be free to partake in whatever career he is qualified for.

Is this typed correctly? Am I reading in wrong? It looks like you're saying dogfighting should be legal.

Mr. Hero
05-28-2009, 10:38 AM
I think it's pretty clearly worded that someone447 doesn't think dog fighting should be illegal, can't say I disagree with him.

datchapin
05-28-2009, 07:47 PM
He already served his time, while I don't think it should be illegal, I am not against him serving time because he knew the risks when he started it. But he has completed what our legal system deemed to be his debt to society, so he should be free to partake in whatever career he is qualified for.

Okay, agreed, he should be free to partake in whatever career he's qualified for. However he worked for the NFL his actions towards the NFL and the negative attention he brought towards the NFL should negate his return to the NFL.

Put yourself in the NFL's shoes. If you had an employee who lied to you, who you backed up and made you look like a fool, would you rehire him? Furthermore he was taking the money you were providing him and investing in an act which you did not condone. Would you still re-hire him? This thread is about should the NFL re-hire him. I for one don't think thats a good idea. So what if he served his time to society, that doesn't mean he deserves a second chance to go back to a privilidged life-style.

Manic Depressant
05-28-2009, 07:49 PM
Okay, agreed, he should be free to partake in whatever career he's qualified for. However he worked for the NFL his actions towards the NFL and the negative attention he brought towards the NFL should negate his return to the NFL.

Put yourself in the NFL's shoes. If you had an employee who lied to you, who you backed up and made you look like a fool, would you rehire him? Furthermore he was taking the money you were providing him and investing in an act which you did not condone. Would you still re-hire him? This thread is about should the NFL re-hire him. I for one don't think thats a good idea. So what if he served his time to society, that doesn't mean he deserves a second chance to go back to a privilidged life-style.

Why does Tank Johnson, Adam Jones, etc. deserve a second chance but not Michael Vick?

datchapin
05-28-2009, 08:47 PM
It is not the responsibility of Vick, society, the government or written laws to raise my kid. It is entirely my responsibility to explain to my son just how big a POS Vick is and how despicable an act he committed. The question about his return is simple - everyone in life gets a second chance and, unfortunately, sometimes a 3rd and 4th.

Without examples of wrong it is difficult to teach what is right.

So for you it would be paramount to teach your kid that it is wrong that Vick is re-instated because entertainment should not be valued over morals. It is sound and commendable logic, though I disagree that Vick is worse than someone who beats their wife or kills someone while driving drunk. Neither of those crimes are accidental, one-time transgressions. All three are chronic, habitual behaviors.


Agreed it's not our responsibility to raise your kids. Its our responsibilities to set examples that will show others a way to better themselves. Vick shirked that responsibility. Not everyone GETS a second chance they are given those chances. You say it's unfortunate so are you saying he deserves that chance? Because if you're not I don't know why you're arguing.

Do you need to show your child examples of bad writing in order for him to write well?

You may think someone who beats their wife is a POS but unfortunately the wife doesn't. Did you know what happened to the founder of MADD? Is she as despicable as Vick even though she fought against what she eventually fell into? Vick willingly embarked on his folly and is a single case study. The other examples are in multitudes. Comparing a single case to a multitude is skewed.

datchapin
05-28-2009, 08:47 PM
Why does Tank Johnson, Adam Jones, etc. deserve a second chance but not Michael Vick?

Did I ever say they did?

Mr. Hero
05-28-2009, 08:52 PM
Okay, agreed, he should be free to partake in whatever career he's qualified for. However he worked for the NFL his actions towards the NFL and the negative attention he brought towards the NFL should negate his return to the NFL.

Put yourself in the NFL's shoes. If you had an employee who lied to you, who you backed up and made you look like a fool, would you rehire him? Furthermore he was taking the money you were providing him and investing in an act which you did not condone. Would you still re-hire him? This thread is about should the NFL re-hire him. I for one don't think thats a good idea. So what if he served his time to society, that doesn't mean he deserves a second chance to go back to a privilidged life-style.

If I thought I could make more money off of him than I lost on him because of his talents and perfomance I probably would at least think about it. Anyway that's a question teams have to ask themselves not the league.

Manic Depressant
05-28-2009, 08:53 PM
Did I ever say they did?

The NFL has already said they do which is why it wouldn't make sense not to give Vick a second chance but to give all those other players a second chance.

Bengalsrocket
05-28-2009, 09:50 PM
If I thought I could make more money off of him than I lost on him because of his talents and perfomance I probably would at least think about it. Anyway that's a question teams have to ask themselves not the league.

Well the league has to ask it as well, because these team's end up putting the player's on the field, which represents the league as a whole.

Timbathia
05-28-2009, 10:00 PM
The NFL has already said they do which is why it wouldn't make sense not to give Vick a second chance but to give all those other players a second chance.

It does make sense as the NFL itself has realised in recent years it needs to have a higher set of standards than it has in the past. Most football codes around the world have been/or are in the process of introducing a stricter code of conduct for its players than has previously existed, as there is an increasingly large public backlash for having its players involved in unacceptable incidents. If the NFL didnt care about this sort of stuff then why would they bother suspending guys like Brandon Marshall for incidents that dont even end up in convictions? The NFL will get increasingly tough on off-field behavior ("bringing the game into disrepute") in the future, so the argument that so-and-so didnt get suspended or banned wont wash anymore.

Manic Depressant
05-28-2009, 10:12 PM
It does make sense as the NFL itself has realised in recent years it needs to have a higher set of standards than it has in the past. Most football codes around the world have been/or are in the process of introducing a stricter code of conduct for its players than has previously existed, as there is an increasingly large public backlash for having its players involved in unacceptable incidents. If the NFL didnt care about this sort of stuff then why would they bother suspending guys like Brandon Marshall for incidents that dont even end up in convictions? The NFL will get increasingly tough on off-field behavior ("bringing the game into disrepute") in the future, so the argument that so-and-so didnt get suspended or banned wont wash anymore.

So all of a sudden every player that gets into trouble with the law deserves a lifetime ban? Where do you draw the line?

Timbathia
05-28-2009, 11:31 PM
So all of a sudden every player that gets into trouble with the law deserves a lifetime ban? Where do you draw the line?

Of course not, and it isnt a line that I need to worry about (so where I draw it is not important). However, I do expect to see a continual increase in the severity of punishments. The NFL are obviously worried about their image based on how they are reacting to these incidents in recent times. If they deem the incident (or the repercussions on their image from a player still being involved in the sport) to be severe enough, then they probably will ban them.

Mr. Hero
05-29-2009, 12:38 AM
Of course not, and it isnt a line that I need to worry about (so where I draw it is not important). However, I do expect to see a continual increase in the severity of punishments. The NFL are obviously worried about their image based on how they are reacting to these incidents in recent times. If they deem the incident (or the repercussions on their image from a player still being involved in the sport) to be severe enough, then they probably will ban them.

Only as long as the media keeps making a big deal of things as that appears to be the only criteria upon which Commissioner Goodell determines how severely to punish players.

Timbathia
05-29-2009, 12:57 AM
Only as long as the media keeps making a big deal of things as that appears to be the only criteria upon which Commissioner Goodell determines how severely to punish players.

Unfortunately the parasites in the media are to blame for many problems in society. Who knows how they sleep at night (at least I am reassured by the special place in hell reserved for them and lawyers).

Mr. Hero
05-29-2009, 01:07 AM
Unfortunately the parasites in the media are to blame for many problems in society. Who knows how they sleep at night (at least I am reassured by the special place in hell reserved for them and lawyers).

Meh, you're expecting the media to be populated by great men but in a society that doesn't value that you'll get ****** short-sighted fear mongering no matter whom you turn to for your news. *shrug* sure they're scum, but they're scum we create and support. Fortunately newspapers are dying thanks to the interwebs and in time so will TV news.

FlyingElvis
05-29-2009, 09:39 AM
Agreed it's not our responsibility to raise your kids. Its our responsibilities to set examples that will show others a way to better themselves. Vick shirked that responsibility. Not everyone GETS a second chance they are given those chances. You say it's unfortunate so are you saying he deserves that chance? Because if you're not I don't know why you're arguing.

The NFL has given many players second, third and even fourth chances in the past. The precedent has been set, therefore denying Vick a similar opportunity would be wrong, imo.

I say it's unfortunate because, like you, I would prefer to see a hardline stance by the league w/some of these guys. Players involved in more serious incidents should be slapped with more severe penalties.

Do you need to show your child examples of bad writing in order for him to write well?
This isn't a very good analogy. But my point was simply that bad stuff happens and it's our job to teach right and wrong. Crap like this becomes a teaching point.

You may think someone who beats their wife is a POS but unfortunately the wife doesn't. Did you know what happened to the founder of MADD? Is she as despicable as Vick even though she fought against what she eventually fell into? Vick willingly embarked on his folly and is a single case study. The other examples are in multitudes. Comparing a single case to a multitude is skewed.
Wut? The wife beater is the POS regardless of the wife's perspective. I never even brought her into the conversation and I certainly never implied she was a POS, too.

Are you trying to say the other examples of wrong doing are people who had no choice? Vick "willingly embarked on his folly" . . . so what, Pacman accidentally punched a female lawyer? Ray Carruth is in jail for accidentally conspriring to kill his girlfriend? Little was forced to drive drunk and kill someone?

datchapin
05-29-2009, 03:07 PM
The NFL has given many players second, third and even fourth chances in the past. The precedent has been set, therefore denying Vick a similar opportunity would be wrong, imo.

I say it's unfortunate because, like you, I would prefer to see a hardline stance by the league w/some of these guys. Players involved in more serious incidents should be slapped with more severe penalties.

No a precedent of this nature has not been set. Comitting a crime is one thing, running an illegal operation is another. This needs to be set right, because if it's not then the next guy who might be an arms dealer, drug trafficker, or runs a prostitution ring will be able to point back on the vick case and use it as a precedent.

You say you want a hardline stance, yet you're vouching for them to be soft on Vick. Why?

This isn't a very good analogy. But my point was simply that bad stuff happens and it's our job to teach right and wrong. Crap like this becomes a teaching point.

Right and wrong is all relative. I'm not going to continue this line of discussion. Sorry. I don't see how it really relates to the original point.

Wut? The wife beater is the POS regardless of the wife's perspective. I never even brought her into the conversation and I certainly never implied she was a POS, too.

Him being a POS is your perspective. I didn't imply that either. To draw the analogy here I would say the wifebeater is Vick and the wife is the NFL. The wife can leave the beater and move on. Staying is her choice, one which I am strongly against.

Are you trying to say the other examples of wrong doing are people who had no choice? Vick "willingly embarked on his folly" . . . so what, Pacman accidentally punched a female lawyer? Ray Carruth is in jail for accidentally conspriring to kill his girlfriend? Little was forced to drive drunk and kill someone?

The first two had intent. the last was a mistake. I don't think Little got in the car hoping to kill someone. To forgive someone who may feel remorse is one thing. Someone that has intent, the chances of repeats are much higher. Again committing a simple crime is one thing, comitting the crime of running or being a part of a large scale criminal operation is another.

FlyingElvis
05-29-2009, 03:36 PM
No a precedent of this nature has not been set. Comitting a crime is one thing, running an illegal operation is another. This needs to be set right, because if it's not then the next guy who might be an arms dealer, drug trafficker, or runs a prostitution ring will be able to point back on the vick case and use it as a precedent.
I don't think it's a legit comparison between dogs, arms, drugs or prostitution. However, I do see your point. I just don't agree with it. ;)

You say you want a hardline stance, yet you're vouching for them to be soft on Vick. Why?
I thought I made it clear - because they have NOT taken a hardline stance on others.

Him being a POS is your perspective. I didn't imply that either. To draw the analogy here I would say the wifebeater is Vick and the wife is the NFL. The wife can leave the beater and move on. Staying is her choice, one which I am strongly against.
Ok, I guess I wasn't quite sure what you meant by "Is she as despicable as Vick even though she fought against what she eventually fell into?" . . . still not sure what the relevance is even now.


The first two had intent. the last was a mistake. I don't think Little got in the car hoping to kill someone. To forgive someone who may feel remorse is one thing. Someone that has intent, the chances of repeats are much higher. Again committing a simple crime is one thing, comitting the crime of running or being a part of a large scale criminal operation is another.
IMO, choosing to get behind the wheel after drinking is no mistake. Ever. It's a choice to disregard the lives of everyone on the road, and it is not something that falls under the guise of "oops, I made a bad decision" because I don't believe for one second someone who chooses to drink and drive only does so once. I know too many drunks to be that naive. Vick never ran the risk of killing someone's family with his "bad decision." How is that worse than drunk driving and killing someone?


******

Two things you mention that are the most important part of any argument:

Right and wrong is all relative.

Him being a POS is your perspective.

Perspective is everything. We clearly don't agree on how severe a crime Vick's dog fighting ring vs. the BS stuff that a douche like "Pacman" gets involved in over and over. Personally, as much as I loathe what Vick did, I find Jones to be a more despicable human. It's a close one, but he just edges Vick out, imo. So if Pacman gets 3 (or was it 4?) stikes before he's out I don't see any legitimate argument for Vick not getting chance #2.

yourfavestoner
05-29-2009, 04:00 PM
No a precedent of this nature has not been set. Comitting a crime is one thing, running an illegal operation is another. This needs to be set right, because if it's not then the next guy who might be an arms dealer, drug trafficker, or runs a prostitution ring will be able to point back on the vick case and use it as a precedent.

You say you want a hardline stance, yet you're vouching for them to be soft on Vick. Why?



Right and wrong is all relative. I'm not going to continue this line of discussion. Sorry. I don't see how it really relates to the original point.



Him being a POS is your perspective. I didn't imply that either. To draw the analogy here I would say the wifebeater is Vick and the wife is the NFL. The wife can leave the beater and move on. Staying is her choice, one which I am strongly against.



The first two had intent. the last was a mistake. I don't think Little got in the car hoping to kill someone. To forgive someone who may feel remorse is one thing. Someone that has intent, the chances of repeats are much higher. Again committing a simple crime is one thing, comitting the crime of running or being a part of a large scale criminal operation is another.

So what about Nick Kazcur, RT of the Patriots, who was caught with enough Oxycontin to supply a pharmacy for a few years? He ratted out the supplier, and nothing happened to him.

datchapin
05-29-2009, 04:12 PM
Okay, I'll keep this as simple as I can, to try to avoid so many offshoots. Agreed pacman is scum, was he given a second chance. Yes. Did he deserve it? No. Should the NFL keep repeating its mistakes?

What you seem to be saying is that they should give Vick a second chance because they gave Pacman and others a second chance. I think Pacman was a mistake and shouldn't be allowed back in the league. Vick being allowed back is like a second Pacman, another mistake. Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results is stupid.

Without using the it's been done before reason. Please tell me why Vick deserves a second chance.

BlindSite
05-29-2009, 04:14 PM
Meh, you're expecting the media to be populated by great men but in a society that doesn't value that you'll get ****** short-sighted fear mongering no matter whom you turn to for your news. *shrug* sure they're scum, but they're scum we create and support. Fortunately newspapers are dying thanks to the interwebs and in time so will TV news.

Actually, though people use the internet for viewing the news it's lead to more people viewing television news in numerical terms (not in % terms) than ever before.

All media is a product, if you don't like it, look it the mirror, that's the issue with media content, not the producers.

datchapin
05-29-2009, 04:26 PM
So what about Nick Kazcur, RT of the Patriots, who was caught with enough Oxycontin to supply a pharmacy for a few years? He ratted out the supplier, and nothing happened to him.

New York State Police said Kaczur was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, a misdemeanor, following an April 27 traffic stop on the New York State Thruway.

I dunno when a misdemeanor was enough to supply a pharmacy for years. But he was busted for possession and helped authorities catch the dealer. How is that a nationwide operation?

Manic Depressant
05-29-2009, 05:16 PM
Okay, I'll keep this as simple as I can, to try to avoid so many offshoots. Agreed pacman is scum, was he given a second chance. Yes. Did he deserve it? No. Should the NFL keep repeating its mistakes?

What you seem to be saying is that they should give Vick a second chance because they gave Pacman and others a second chance. I think Pacman was a mistake and shouldn't be allowed back in the league. Vick being allowed back is like a second Pacman, another mistake. Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results is stupid.

Without using the it's been done before reason. Please tell me why Vick deserves a second chance.

Dogfighting is not even close to a crime I would list as not deserving of a second chance.

Mr. Hero
05-29-2009, 05:32 PM
All media is a product, if you don't like it, look it the mirror, that's the issue with media content, not the producers.

Thank you for repeating the post you just quoted.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
05-29-2009, 08:09 PM
Dogfighting is not even close to a crime I would list as not deserving of a second chance.

torturing animals, abusing them, starving them, and having them kill one another is not something that you consider serious? Are you being real? My guess is that you are putting it relative to someone drunk driving. Let's compare though. This person may or may not lead to the death of another individual. This may be a single isolated incident. This is obviously a terrible thing and should be punished. Dog fighting is a long lasting number of activities that takes a long time to put together and multiple living creatures are put through hell and die.

I'm not going against what you are saying, it is your opinion, but i'm not sure i totally agree.

The fact is, both are worthy of severe punishment and IMO if this wasn't a league set on precedent, IMO people who do either should be out. Severe? Very. But a person should not be drunk driving (in the real world this leads to difficulty finding employment) especially with the money they make, and someone organizing a dog fighting ring really isn't that good a person.....i don't care how you rationalize it ('just animals/dogs' - i don't buy that crap)

In today's world though.....he will get a brief suspension and be back on a team as a backup. People will pay to see him play, and the league will profit.

CC.SD
05-29-2009, 08:45 PM
Dogfighting is not even close to a crime I would list as not deserving of a second chance.

It's not as bad as murder via drunk driving, that's for sure.

Mr. Hero
05-29-2009, 09:42 PM
torturing animals, abusing them, starving them, and having them kill one another is not something that you consider serious? Are you being real? My guess is that you are putting it relative to someone drunk driving. Let's compare though. This person may or may not lead to the death of another individual. This may be a single isolated incident. This is obviously a terrible thing and should be punished. Dog fighting is a long lasting number of activities that takes a long time to put together and multiple living creatures are put through hell and die.

I'm not going against what you are saying, it is your opinion, but i'm not sure i totally agree.

The fact is, both are worthy of severe punishment and IMO if this wasn't a league set on precedent, IMO people who do either should be out. Severe? Very. But a person should not be drunk driving (in the real world this leads to difficulty finding employment) especially with the money they make, and someone organizing a dog fighting ring really isn't that good a person.....i don't care how you rationalize it ('just animals/dogs' - i don't buy that crap)

In today's world though.....he will get a brief suspension and be back on a team as a backup. People will pay to see him play, and the league will profit.

People > animals ergo even I, who has so far avoided DUI's on pure luck and awesome cop skills, believe the chance of killing a person because you're driving drunk is a worse crime than brutally torturing and killing even a hundred dogs.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
05-29-2009, 10:20 PM
People > animals ergo even I, who has so far avoided DUI's on pure luck and awesome cop skills, believe the chance of killing a person because you're driving drunk is a worse crime than brutally torturing and killing even a hundred dogs.

You feel the same as many others, which is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that both acts are worthy of severe punishment.....

Mr. Hero
05-29-2009, 10:47 PM
You feel the same as many others, which is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that both acts are worthy of severe punishment.....

In the interests of self-preservation I disagree :D

FlyingElvis
06-01-2009, 12:01 PM
Okay, I'll keep this as simple as I can, to try to avoid so many offshoots. Agreed pacman is scum, was he given a second chance. Yes. Did he deserve it? No. Should the NFL keep repeating its mistakes?

What you seem to be saying is that they should give Vick a second chance because they gave Pacman and others a second chance. I think Pacman was a mistake and shouldn't be allowed back in the league. Vick being allowed back is like a second Pacman, another mistake. Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results is stupid.

Without using the it's been done before reason. Please tell me why Vick deserves a second chance.

So you want me to make my argument without using the basis for my argument.

No.

BlindSite
06-01-2009, 06:38 PM
I'm a Panthers fan and an animal lover and outside of that, I hate Vick's personality more than any player in recent history of the NFL and I believe he should be allowed to play.

Realistically he violated some minor conduct bi-laws in the NFL and so he should probably have his pay garnished and the money should go to some charity after he spends a couple of weeks suspended.

That being said he should be free to play, he's served his debt to society.

bored of education
06-12-2009, 09:30 AM
Vick was officially released this morning.

brat316
06-12-2009, 10:33 AM
USFL here comes VICK.

See he can play three months there get in shape, and then join a team November. I doubt any teams are looking for him to contribute right away.

Saints-Tigers
06-12-2009, 04:48 PM
"Drew Brees goes down with a catastrophic turf toe injury in the preseason, and Mike Vick leads the New Orleans Saints to a superbowl victory.

Addict
06-12-2009, 04:51 PM
"Drew Brees goes down with a catastrophic turf toe injury in the preseason, and Mike Vick leads the New Orleans Saints to a superbowl victory.

calling Vick a Saint would be a surreal experience.

BNad
06-12-2009, 06:17 PM
calling Vick a Saint would be a surreal experience.

Rofl, so true.

Iamcanadian
06-13-2009, 01:51 AM
First, the NFL won't ban him for life although Goodall would love to because Vick gave the NFL a black eye and his being in the league will likely have further repercussions. However, if the league banned him for life, Vick would take them to court since he served his time and has a right under the law to earn a living. The courts would not look kindly at a life time ban.
The NFL will ban Vick for as long as their lawyers tell them they can get away with it. Be it 4, 6, 8 or possibly a season. Whatever their lawyers say the law will likely accept is the ban they will hand out.
In my eyes, Vick is a murderer pure and simple but that won't keep him out of the NFL.