I can't help but be disgusted by Vick's actions, but I have to wonder if Society's not getting too puritanical. Banned for life? I don't know.
1. He's not "banned for life" from anything--where are dudes getting that one from?
2. Have any of you dudes shaking your heads and suggesting that it might be overly punitive actually followed the case? This is not just about him sponsoring dogfighting in absentia--this is about him personally electrocuting, drowning and mauling dogs to death.
The "banned for Life" is a possible option for Vick that ESPN had in an article. i have seen it in a couple of other places too.
Just saw Tyrone Wheatley on TV recently & he said he saw dog fights in his hood when he was a kid.
OH NOW IT IS A CULTURAL IDIOSYNCRASY.
OH THOSE BLACK FOLKS FROM THE GHETTO THEY DON'T KNOW NO BETTER THAN TO ELECTROCUTE DOGS. IT'S PART OF THEIR CULTURE.
Don't go putting words in my mouth, pal. I'm saying that these things can't be altogether uncommon in the USA. There must be a dog fight happening somewhere in America right now. And that shouldn't surprise anyone.
No, I'm not putting anything in your mouth - your post was to say that we should go easy on Vick because he might've grown up around dogfighting.
I'm saying that a professional athlete is not a paragon of virtue & he doesn't have to be. His world is dog eat dog. And I'd say that what he's done is awful, but he didn't kill his wife or a person. And what he's involved with has to be widespread. Mike Vick might be the poster child for dog fights now, but I'm sure that it has deep roots all over the states. I'd even bet that he's not the only NFL'er that's involved in this, if he ever names names. Furthermore, this guy is not paid to be a gentleman. He's paid to go out & win. And these guys do this at any cost. Professional sports is a culture in & of itself. And being a part of it doesn't work towards building up many healthy traits or habits. Go to one training camp & tell me if you don't come out of there a little fucked in the head. Cause you're treated like meat & pushed to be as rough & vicious as you can get.
Dude, you're talking like his "crime" was churlishly refusing to sign an autograph or some schitt.
Again, have you followed the case? Do you know what's really at issue here?
Yes. He killed dogs & that's terrible. But google Tommy Kane or Laurence Philips.
I can't help but be disgusted by Vick's actions, but I have to wonder if Society's not getting too puritanical. Banned for life? I don't know.
1. He's not "banned for life" from anything--where are dudes getting that one from?
2. Have any of you dudes shaking your heads and suggesting that it might be overly punitive actually followed the case? This is not just about him sponsoring dogfighting in absentia--this is about him personally electrocuting, drowning and mauling dogs to death.
The "banned for Life" is a possible option for Vick that ESPN had in an article. i have seen it in a couple of other places too.
sayin. Carry on.
It's just speculation at this point--nobody knows what's going to happen.
But if dudes want to get upset about something, get upset about the actions of the government, which does have a basic obligation to treat its citizens fairly. The NFL, by contrast, is a private employer that traffics in image and which has no further obligations towards somebody that behaves so foolishly.
Just saw Tyrone Wheatley on TV recently & he said he saw dog fights in his hood when he was a kid.
OH NOW IT IS A CULTURAL IDIOSYNCRASY.
OH THOSE BLACK FOLKS FROM THE GHETTO THEY DON'T KNOW NO BETTER THAN TO ELECTROCUTE DOGS. IT'S PART OF THEIR CULTURE.
Don't go putting words in my mouth, pal. I'm saying that these things can't be altogether uncommon in the USA. There must be a dog fight happening somewhere in America right now. And that shouldn't surprise anyone.
No, I'm not putting anything in your mouth - your post was to say that we should go easy on Vick because he might've grown up around dogfighting.
I'm saying that a professional athlete is not a paragon of virtue & he doesn't have to be. His world is dog eat dog. And I'd say that what he's done is awful, but he didn't kill his wife or a person. And what he's involved with has to be widespread. Mike Vick might be the poster child for dog fights now, but I'm sure that it has deep roots all over the states. I'd even bet that he's not the only NFL'er that's involved in this, if he ever names names. Furthermore, this guy is not paid to be a gentleman. He's paid to go out & win. And these guys do this at any cost. Professional sports is a culture in & of itself. And being a part of it doesn't work towards building up many healthy traits or habits. Go to one training camp & tell me if you don't come out of there a little fucked in the head. Cause you're treated like meat & pushed to be as rough & vicious as you can get.
Dude, you're talking like his "crime" was churlishly refusing to sign an autograph or some schitt.
Again, have you followed the case? Do you know what's really at issue here?
Yes. He killed dogs & that's terrible. But google Tommy Kane or Laurence Philips.
No, I don't think so. If you have something resembling a point involving these two men, then it's on you to make it.
Good points Faux_Rillz. Hey btw, I have no clue about law. So with the guilty plea, Vick basically admitted to everything presented in the indictment?
Don't know the details and I'm not a criminal attorney.
The way it generally works is that the accused pleads guilty to some lesser set of offenses than those that he has actually been charged with. It's a trade-off: the government is assured of something resembling a conviction; while the accused gets something less than what the government tried to stick him with.
Sometimes the government does railroad people into taking plea bargains--people that don't have the money or resources to effcetively combat a charge. This is common w/r/t drug-related charges.
But Vick can afford the best criminal defense attorneys in the game. If his people advised him to accept a plea, you can damn sure believe that the government had built an extremely convincing case against him.
Good points Faux_Rillz. Hey btw, I have no clue about law. So with the guilty plea, Vick basically admitted to everything presented in the indictment?
Don't know the details and I'm not a criminal attorney.
The way it generally works is that the accused pleads guilty to some lesser set of offenses than those that he has actually been charged with. It's a trade-off: the government is assured of something resembling a conviction; while the accused gets something less than what the government tried to stick him with.
Sometimes the government does railroad people into taking plea bargains--people that don't have the money or resources to effcetively combat a charge. This is common w/r/t drug-related charges.
But Vick can afford the best criminal defense attorneys in the game. If his people advised him to accept a plea, you can damn sure believe that the government had built an extremely convincing case against him.
Good points Faux_Rillz. Hey btw, I have no clue about law. So with the guilty plea, Vick basically admitted to everything presented in the indictment?
Don't know the details and I'm not a criminal attorney.
The way it generally works is that the accused pleads guilty to some lesser set of offenses than those that he has actually been charged with. It's a trade-off: the government is assured of something resembling a conviction; while the accused gets something less than what the government tried to stick him with.
Sometimes the government does railroad people into taking plea bargains--people that don't have the money or resources to effcetively combat a charge. This is common w/r/t drug-related charges.
But Vick can afford the best criminal defense attorneys in the game. If his people advised him to accept a plea, you can damn sure believe that the government had built an extremely convincing case against him.
Thank you.
Somebody like JRoot could probably add a lot to what I said... or maybe correct it.
Good points Faux_Rillz. Hey btw, I have no clue about law. So with the guilty plea, Vick basically admitted to everything presented in the indictment?
Don't know the details and I'm not a criminal attorney.
The way it generally works is that the accused pleads guilty to some lesser set of offenses than those that he has actually been charged with. It's a trade-off: the government is assured of something resembling a conviction; while the accused gets something less than what the government tried to stick him with.
Sometimes the government does railroad people into taking plea bargains--people that don't have the money or resources to effcetively combat a charge. This is common w/r/t drug-related charges.
But Vick can afford the best criminal defense attorneys in the game. If his people advised him to accept a plea, you can damn sure believe that the government had built an extremely convincing case against him.
Thank you.
Somebody like JRoot could probably add a lot to what I said... or maybe correct it.
Do you think the apparent glee of some people who cheered this outcome is much different than the apparent glee that some folks had when OJ was found innocent??
I think overlooking the crime itself to cheer a verdict based on race alone is the ultimate NAGL.
watching two adults slug it out in the boxing ring creates the same kind of attraction as watching a bunch of dogs bite it out. The agency of the participants may not be equal but I don't think it's a stretch to compare the two.
This is absolutely, patently ridiculous. The words of a sensitive girly man, nestled securely in the bosom of liberal California, offended by in-your-face play, disturbed even by heavily padded athletes tackling each other on the gridiron.
Seriously though, boxing is a sport; one that requires huge amounts of skill and endurance. There's really no comparison. It is ABSOLUTELY a stretch.
Dude, you needs to chill. I wasn't suggesting boxing wasn't a sport or that it doesn't require skill. I've taken boxing, I know the amount of work and skill that goes into it. I respect it. I like football too.
But c'mon, people don't watch and enjoy sports like boxing purely for displays of balletic skill and mental rigor (even if they're part of the charm). At some level, it's about enjoying violence and I'm not above that. I just don't get how enjoying watching dogs tear into one another is on a wholly different plane than enjoying men smash fists into one another but in all fairness, I've never seen a dog fight in person so I can't make a direct comparison.
In any case, point I was responding to was over the argument that "dogs don't have a choice" and at that point, we're getting into a philosophical argument over human agency vs. animal labor. Do I think there's a difference? Sure. But I'm not about to claim it's some apples vs. oranges shit either.
Do you think the apparent glee of some people who cheered this outcome is much different than the apparent glee that some folks had when OJ was found innocent??
I think overlooking the crime itself to cheer a verdict based on race alone is the ultimate NAGL.
You know what... I started to type an answer, but I'm not even going to get into it with you. I'm going home.
watching two adults slug it out in the boxing ring creates the same kind of attraction as watching a bunch of dogs bite it out. The agency of the participants may not be equal but I don't think it's a stretch to compare the two.
This is absolutely, patently ridiculous. The words of a sensitive girly man, nestled securely in the bosom of liberal California, offended by in-your-face play, disturbed even by heavily padded athletes tackling each other on the gridiron.
Seriously though, boxing is a sport; one that requires huge amounts of skill and endurance. There's really no comparison. It is ABSOLUTELY a stretch.
Dude, you needs to chill. I wasn't suggesting boxing wasn't a sport or that it doesn't require skill. I've taken boxing, I know the amount of work and skill that goes into it. I respect it. I like football too.
But c'mon, people don't watch and enjoy sports like boxing purely for displays of balletic skill and mental rigor (even if they're part of the charm). At some level, it's about enjoying violence and I'm not above that. I just don't get how enjoying watching dogs tear into one another is on a wholly different plane than enjoying men smash fists into one another but in all fairness, I've never seen a dog fight in person so I can't make a direct comparison.
In any case, point I was responding to was over the argument that "dogs don't have a choice" and at that point, we're getting into a philosophical argument over human agency vs. animal labor. Do I think there's a difference? Sure. But I'm not about to claim it's some apples vs. oranges shit either.
Oliver, again: you do realize that there's a lot more to this case than Vick standing ringside and watching a dogfight or two, don't you?
Do you think the apparent glee of some people who cheered this outcome is much different than the apparent glee that some folks had when OJ was found innocent??
I think overlooking the crime itself to cheer a verdict based on race alone is the ultimate NAGL.
uh oh...this is pandora's box. The racists will be racists, no matter what the incident. Close-minded people will be close-minded people. I think the vast majority of those celebrating this outcome are celebrating because they were truly horrified. I don't think anyone's overlooking the crime.
watching two adults slug it out in the boxing ring creates the same kind of attraction as watching a bunch of dogs bite it out. The agency of the participants may not be equal but I don't think it's a stretch to compare the two.
This is absolutely, patently ridiculous. The words of a sensitive girly man, nestled securely in the bosom of liberal California, offended by in-your-face play, disturbed even by heavily padded athletes tackling each other on the gridiron.
Seriously though, boxing is a sport; one that requires huge amounts of skill and endurance. There's really no comparison. It is ABSOLUTELY a stretch.
Dude, you needs to chill. I wasn't suggesting boxing wasn't a sport or that it doesn't require skill. I've taken boxing, I know the amount of work and skill that goes into it. I respect it. I like football too.
But c'mon, people don't watch and enjoy sports like boxing purely for displays of balletic skill and mental rigor (even if they're part of the charm). At some level, it's about enjoying violence and I'm not above that. I just don't get how enjoying watching dogs tear into one another is on a wholly different plane than enjoying men smash fists into one another but in all fairness, I've never seen a dog fight in person so I can't make a direct comparison.
In any case, point I was responding to was over the argument that "dogs don't have a choice" and at that point, we're getting into a philosophical argument over human agency vs. animal labor. Do I think there's a difference? Sure. But I'm not about to claim it's some apples vs. oranges shit either.
Dubs, I can respect your dialogue, BUT the latter part of your discussion is (to me) irrelevant. If you think about it that way, it just blurs all lines on what's right and what's wrong. What is acceptable and what is not. Who decides these rules and who should not.
I don't think a boxer was ever drowned or slammed, execution-style for underperforming for their club.
People were asking for Vick's head when the accusations were that he had knwoledge of what was happening but not necessarily a direct hand in it. I didn't see those allegations come out until the past week, once the plea deals started going down and possible testimony leaked.
In any case, my point isn't that Vick is getting railed in dispoportion to his alleged crime. Dude deserves to have whatever is coming to him. But my point, perhaps poorly stated, was that I hope that similar punishment gets meted out for other folks who commit violence (off the field) in what should be indefensible ways.
And yeah, I do think there's a double standard around dog abuse vs human abuse and this actually goes to JP's point about living in CA: it's like living in nutty dog owner central. There was a recent LA Times editorial entitled, "What I Hate Dog Owners" that addressed some of this.
And Rock: you're a true classic. Vick = payback for OJ is even beyond my apparent level of stretched comparisons.
And Rock: you're a true classic. Vick = payback for OJ is even beyond my apparent level of stretched comparisons.
I'm not the one who brought up race....
Faux Rillz wrote:
That said, I can't help but read some of the glee people are taking in seeing Vick go down as being racial. A lot of white folks had it in for dude before any of this ever surfaced.
In what way do you disagree that in the Vick AND the OJ case people on both sides of the racial divide apparently cheered verdicts based on race and not the crime itself??
BY no means am I suggesting "payback"...but I am suggesting that if people react to a criminal case based on race and not the crime itself it's not a good look.
watching two adults slug it out in the boxing ring creates the same kind of attraction as watching a bunch of dogs bite it out. The agency of the participants may not be equal but I don't think it's a stretch to compare the two.
This is absolutely, patently ridiculous. The words of a sensitive girly man, nestled securely in the bosom of liberal California, offended by in-your-face play, disturbed even by heavily padded athletes tackling each other on the gridiron.
Seriously though, boxing is a sport; one that requires huge amounts of skill and endurance. There's really no comparison. It is ABSOLUTELY a stretch.
Dude, you needs to chill. I wasn't suggesting boxing wasn't a sport or that it doesn't require skill. I've taken boxing, I know the amount of work and skill that goes into it. I respect it. I like football too.
But c'mon, people don't watch and enjoy sports like boxing purely for displays of balletic skill and mental rigor (even if they're part of the charm). At some level, it's about enjoying violence and I'm not above that. I just don't get how enjoying watching dogs tear into one another is on a wholly different plane than enjoying men smash fists into one another but in all fairness, I've never seen a dog fight in person so I can't make a direct comparison.
In any case, point I was responding to was over the argument that "dogs don't have a choice" and at that point, we're getting into a philosophical argument over human agency vs. animal labor. Do I think there's a difference? Sure. But I'm not about to claim it's some apples vs. oranges shit either.
man c'mon you are basically making a strawman argument.
There is a huge difference between boxing and dog fighting, do we really need to go point by point over the differences? I mean the fact that the dog fighting was taking place on private proerty in a hidden building that was in the woods and painted black so it would ummm... not be seen, says alot about the legitemacy of these fights.
There needing to be two parties fighting is about the ONLY similarity between the two and after that, its over.
And as it has been noted over and over and over again, add to that the brutality that was shown to the losing dogs, and the fact that you have gambling charges involved and there is a whole lot more shit going on here than some...
"I didn't know I couldn't do that!" or some "Hey i am in the hood and we did that so its part of my culture" excuse or "whats the difference between this and boxing?" is all just being unrealistic and not facing the facts (ahh the power of fame).
Seriously though, if he didn't know he couldn't do it he wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to hide it and would have gotten caught earlier, not years into this shit.
Vick is either really stupid or he has some serious problems mentally. Either way giving him any kind of a pass is just weak.
I just wanna say I dropped so many truth nuggets in this one. Some of yall need to get focused. Academics and hypothetical shit is nice until it starts to overtake one's faculties of making judgements based on common sense, moderation, and first-hand experience.
Dubs, I can respect your dialogue, BUT the latter part of your discussion is (to me) irrelevant. If you think about it that way, it just blurs all lines on what's right and what's wrong. What is acceptable and what is not. Who decides these rules and who should not.
I don't think a boxer was ever drowned or slammed, execution-style for underperforming for their club.
Morality is incredibly blurry. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this debate at all.
Dubs, I can respect your dialogue, BUT the latter part of your discussion is (to me) irrelevant. If you think about it that way, it just blurs all lines on what's right and what's wrong. What is acceptable and what is not. Who decides these rules and who should not.
I don't think a boxer was ever drowned or slammed, execution-style for underperforming for their club.
Morality is incredibly blurry. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this debate at all.
No doubt, but we need to draw lines somewhere....at least people like it that way (most).
The internets is a breeding ground for unrealistic expectations of the world. Enough of this. I don't know about yall, but I need to get laid, light up an L (i don't smoke), and guzzle a 40.
And Rock: you're a true classic. Vick = payback for OJ is even beyond my apparent level of stretched comparisons.
I'm not the one who brought up race....
Faux Rillz wrote:
That said, I can't help but read some of the glee people are taking in seeing Vick go down as being racial. A lot of white folks had it in for dude before any of this ever surfaced.
Faux brought up race. He did not bring OJ. That's on you.
Morality is incredibly blurry. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this debate at all.
The only reason this thing resembles a debate is because you're making your ridiculous claim a hill to die on.
I'm not even sure which claim you're referring to is at this point. The boxing/dog fighting point was never my original point (though I suppose I could have left it well alone as well).
And Rock: you're a true classic. Vick = payback for OJ is even beyond my apparent level of stretched comparisons.
I'm not the one who brought up race....
Faux Rillz wrote:
That said, I can't help but read some of the glee people are taking in seeing Vick go down as being racial. A lot of white folks had it in for dude before any of this ever surfaced.
Faux brought up race. He did not bring OJ. That's on you.
Comments
The "banned for Life" is a possible option for Vick that ESPN had in an article. i have seen it in a couple of other places too.
sayin. Carry on.
Yes. He killed dogs & that's terrible. But google Tommy Kane or Laurence Philips.
It's just speculation at this point--nobody knows what's going to happen.
But if dudes want to get upset about something, get upset about the actions of the government, which does have a basic obligation to treat its citizens fairly. The NFL, by contrast, is a private employer that traffics in image and which has no further obligations towards somebody that behaves so foolishly.
No, I don't think so. If you have something resembling a point involving these two men, then it's on you to make it.
Don't know the details and I'm not a criminal attorney.
The way it generally works is that the accused pleads guilty to some lesser set of offenses than those that he has actually been charged with. It's a trade-off: the government is assured of something resembling a conviction; while the accused gets something less than what the government tried to stick him with.
Sometimes the government does railroad people into taking plea bargains--people that don't have the money or resources to effcetively combat a charge. This is common w/r/t drug-related charges.
But Vick can afford the best criminal defense attorneys in the game. If his people advised him to accept a plea, you can damn sure believe that the government had built an extremely convincing case against him.
Somebody like JRoot could probably add a lot to what I said... or maybe correct it.
Cool.
Do you think the apparent glee of some people who cheered this outcome is much different than the apparent glee that some folks had when OJ was found innocent??
I think overlooking the crime itself to cheer a verdict based on race alone is the ultimate NAGL.
Dude, you needs to chill. I wasn't suggesting boxing wasn't a sport or that it doesn't require skill. I've taken boxing, I know the amount of work and skill that goes into it. I respect it. I like football too.
But c'mon, people don't watch and enjoy sports like boxing purely for displays of balletic skill and mental rigor (even if they're part of the charm). At some level, it's about enjoying violence and I'm not above that. I just don't get how enjoying watching dogs tear into one another is on a wholly different plane than enjoying men smash fists into one another but in all fairness, I've never seen a dog fight in person so I can't make a direct comparison.
In any case, point I was responding to was over the argument that "dogs don't have a choice" and at that point, we're getting into a philosophical argument over human agency vs. animal labor. Do I think there's a difference? Sure. But I'm not about to claim it's some apples vs. oranges shit either.
You know what... I started to type an answer, but I'm not even going to get into it with you. I'm going home.
Oliver, again: you do realize that there's a lot more to this case than Vick standing ringside and watching a dogfight or two, don't you?
uh oh...this is pandora's box. The racists will be racists, no matter what the incident. Close-minded people will be close-minded people. I think the vast majority of those celebrating this outcome are celebrating because they were truly horrified. I don't think anyone's overlooking the crime.
Dubs, I can respect your dialogue, BUT the latter part of your discussion is (to me) irrelevant. If you think about it that way, it just blurs all lines on what's right and what's wrong. What is acceptable and what is not. Who decides these rules and who should not.
I don't think a boxer was ever drowned or slammed, execution-style for underperforming for their club.
People were asking for Vick's head when the accusations were that he had knwoledge of what was happening but not necessarily a direct hand in it. I didn't see those allegations come out until the past week, once the plea deals started going down and possible testimony leaked.
In any case, my point isn't that Vick is getting railed in dispoportion to his alleged crime. Dude deserves to have whatever is coming to him. But my point, perhaps poorly stated, was that I hope that similar punishment gets meted out for other folks who commit violence (off the field) in what should be indefensible ways.
And yeah, I do think there's a double standard around dog abuse vs human abuse and this actually goes to JP's point about living in CA: it's like living in nutty dog owner central. There was a recent LA Times editorial entitled, "What I Hate Dog Owners" that addressed some of this.
And Rock: you're a true classic. Vick = payback for OJ is even beyond my apparent level of stretched comparisons.
I'm not the one who brought up race....
Faux Rillz wrote:
In what way do you disagree that in the Vick AND the OJ case people on both sides of the racial divide apparently cheered verdicts based on race and not the crime itself??
BY no means am I suggesting "payback"...but I am suggesting that if people react to a criminal case based on race and not the crime itself it's not a good look.
Please disagree with that.
man c'mon you are basically making a strawman argument.
There is a huge difference between boxing and dog fighting, do we really need to go point by point over the differences? I mean the fact that the dog fighting was taking place on private proerty in a hidden building that was in the woods and painted black so it would ummm... not be seen, says alot about the legitemacy of these fights.
There needing to be two parties fighting is about the ONLY similarity between the two and after that, its over.
And as it has been noted over and over and over again, add to that the brutality that was shown to the losing dogs, and the fact that you have gambling charges involved and there is a whole lot more shit going on here than some...
"I didn't know I couldn't do that!" or some "Hey i am in the hood and we did that so its part of my culture" excuse or "whats the difference between this and boxing?" is all just being unrealistic and not facing the facts (ahh the power of fame).
Seriously though, if he didn't know he couldn't do it he wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to hide it and would have gotten caught earlier, not years into this shit.
Vick is either really stupid or he has some serious problems mentally. Either way giving him any kind of a pass is just weak.
Morality is incredibly blurry. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this debate at all.
No doubt, but we need to draw lines somewhere....at least people like it that way (most).
The internets is a breeding ground for unrealistic expectations of the world.
Now THAT'S a nugget.
Faux brought up race. He did not bring OJ. That's on you.
My ass is generally unproductive, but sometimes I'm on and I produce gems.
The only reason this thing resembles a debate is because you're making your ridiculous claim a hill to die on.
I'm not even sure which claim you're referring to is at this point. The boxing/dog fighting point was never my original point (though I suppose I could have left it well alone as well).
If the members of Academia can't determine clear cut morals how can the rest of us idiots do it??
That's it???