Vick to be honored... *just shakes head* [Archive]

Prrkitty

08-03-2007, 02:25 PM

I couldn't believe it when I read this news article -

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13815031/detail.html

*quoted from the article*

ATLANTA -- While he waits for his trial related to dogfighting charges to start, Michael Vick will be honored by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

SCLC President Charles Steele announced Thursday during a news conference that the group will find a way to honor Vick during its national convention that began Friday.

"We will recognize Vick for being an outstanding human being," said Steele. "We will work with anyone who opens their heart and arms to us."

*end quote of article*

Are people just plain blind to reality? *just shakes my head*

Glenn the Great

08-03-2007, 02:27 PM

Do you think they would recognize me as an outstanding human being?

Beldaran

08-03-2007, 02:46 PM

Are people just plain blind to reality?

Well, they are christians after all.:googly:

Mitsukara

08-03-2007, 02:55 PM

Do you think they would recognize me as an outstanding human being?
Only if you stop thinking about things logically and cease any badmouthing of conservatives/evangelical figures like that old ba, uhhhhhh, Jerry Falwell.

Oh, and you have to suck up to them. A lot.

Am I the only one perplexed as to why presidential cantidates are attending the opening of this place's headquarters? Are all presidents expected to be christian (and not just christian, but southern conservative evangelist-approving type christians) now? Did Bush's buttbuddies secretly get a law passed to that effect?

Trevelyan_06

08-03-2007, 03:18 PM

Are all presidents expected to be christian (and not just christian, but southern conservative evangelist-approving type christians) now?

To a certain extent, yes. If a non-christian, or even worse... an atheist!, was elected president then the first thing christians would do is start loudly complaining that they were going to be persecuted. Everything that president did would be taken as something against christians.

The damned "moral majority" in this country is ridiculous. This country was founded on religious freedom, which includes the freedom from any religion. The state and church should be separated and everyone mind their own religious views. None of the those political figures should have attended this event.

Daarkseid

08-03-2007, 04:30 PM

Michael Vick will be honored by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Thats all I read before my brain tuned out.

Cloral

08-03-2007, 05:43 PM

Well I guess this means that the SLCL promotes dogfighting. Everybody remember that the next time they make any sort of statement on what they call a 'morals' issue.

Fucking hypocrits.

rock_nog

08-03-2007, 06:30 PM

Well, if there's one thing that religion excels at, it's bringing out the hypocrisy in people. Not to suggest that it's the only source, but it's an extremely reliable one. Plus, religion has the side effect of making it impossible to approach people about their hypocrisy. I mean, their entire conception of the universe is built up upon that hypocrisy, you can't just take it away.

*shudders* The disturbing thing is how much it seems I keep ending up agreeing with Beldaran lately. Oy, maybe I should take up religion just so this doesn't get too far out of hand.

Prrkitty

08-04-2007, 01:14 AM

I totally agree with you Cloral... fucking hypocrits (and yes I used the f-word). I honestly can NOT believe those people plan on honoring someone who has repeatedly had bad behavior... even BEFORE the dog fighting incident.

Vic's brother has been in trouble with the law for a number of years (I can't remember where I read what all he'd been charged with... nor if he'd been convicted of any of them).

And the SCLC wants to honor Vic for being an ... "outstanding human being"? I say... ONLY if it pertains to him "OUT STANDING in his dog fighting rings"!

GAH!!!!

AtmaWeapon

08-04-2007, 01:57 AM

You know I keep comparing these venomous cries of hypocrisy with the notion that the SCLC apparently hasn't done anything of note since they had Martin Luther King, Jr. in their membership and I'm having trouble understanding the connection.

While we are busy knee-jerking and finding someone to blame it on, I would like to point out this is less a religiously motivated organization and more a racially motivated organization. I took a look at the Wikipedia article and noticed that the last notable activity there for the SCLC was in the 60s; blaming this on Wikipedia's lax standards I took it further. The main site (http://www.sclcnational.org/content/sclc/splash.htm) reminds me of a civil-rights motivated group. Digging further, I found this:

WHO WE ARE
WHO WE ARE:
The SCLC consists of local chapters and affiliates from around the country that support the organization, and work in their own community to implement national programs such as voter registration, improvement of education and direct action against racial injustice. Oddly, when I saw them mention religion at all it was through neutral words such as "spirituality" and "inter-faith". It is clear to me that the term "Christian" was added to their name in an attempt to appeal to people and suggest that their mission (promoting civil rights for all races) was not just a noble goal but a divine one. They have very little material that suggests to me that Christianity is a core value of their mission.

But I'm sure, all of you being rationally-minded individuals, did your research before posting. In fact, finding an article about the civil rights undertones (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20096856/site/newsweek/) of the case took such a trivial effort I'm going to assume everyone already read it. Ignoring the fact that he is black and two powerful black rights organizations are rushing to his aid , one can see that they seem to feel that the sensational media has been unfair to Vick. Unfortunately one has to read their arguments and think very hard about their meaning to arrive at this conclusion, and it looks kind of silly of them. (I think it's rubbish but hey whatever.)

But I'm sure all of you good people are above the hypocrisy of reading a single news article, associating an organization with a group of people because of a word in its name, then transferring hatred to the group of people because of the group without doing any research to see just who they were and what they stood for.

By the way, since we are all educated individuals, the proper spelling is hypocrite. If I were to follow your line of logic, could I decide that since there is a Church of Christ, Scientist (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_sci.htm) that all scientists must be Christians? It has both "Christ" and "Scientist" in the name, after all!

I don't see hypocrisy, I see the NAACP and a sister organization rushing to the aid of a poor black soul that is being held down by PETA and other primarily white organizations. This has been par for the course for quite some time now.

rock_nog

08-04-2007, 02:23 AM

Hahaha, I will be the first to admit that I am not above a little hypocrisy. I am, however, willing to admit that mistakes may have been made. My bad. I mean, I certainly stand by my statements, but in retrospect, this may not have been the place for them.

Although regardless, in light of recent events, it's still kind of odd that Vick would be honored by anyone. Certainly, though, yes, I can't deny the civil rights undertones of the case, but it's kind of hard to get past the whole "dogfighting" business.

Cloral

08-04-2007, 02:35 AM

OK, so I didn't bother to read the article before posting. But you know what? They are still hypocrites. They want people to be judged not by their race but by their character, but they are defending him because of his race and are ignoring his character. Not only is that the very definition of hypocricy, it makes them racists.

Beldaran

08-04-2007, 02:42 AM

Unlike rock_nog, I am completely above hypocrisy. I am not hypocritical at all, in any way. I am, and have been, and will continue to be, wrong about many things based on my lack of knowledge, frame of reference, or mistake. However, every time I receive new information proving me wrong, I adjust my viewpoints accordingly. In my behavior there is no moral contradiction whatsoever.

This Southern Christian Leadership Conference is behaving stupidly. I assume that the vast majority, if not all, of its membership consists of magic believers, many of whom believe in the undead super-wizard named Jesus. I consider this belief to be unscientific and have found historically that it is often associated with ridiculous if not downright evil behavior.

I am now aware that it is primarily a racially motivated group. Still, I doubt a statistically significant percentage of it's members identify themselves as atheist. I can therefore view it correctly as another example of people inclined towards irrational behavior behaving irrationally.

rock_nog

08-04-2007, 03:30 AM

Well, um... yeah... Damnit Beldaran. Even when you're being horribly flawed, you're perfect. Gah! This is why I hate you - because you're so damn right all the time. Me, I like being wrong. Being right all the time is a big responsibility - I need to be able to have the freedom to be utterly and completely stupid from time to time (trust me on this).

Beldaran

08-04-2007, 04:02 AM

Think carefully about this though... I'm claiming that I'm right all the time in the sense that I refuse to believe I'm absolutely right about anything. It's scientific skepticism.

I believe I am above hypocrisy because I ruthlessly analyze and correct my behavior to correspond to the data stream reaching my brain through my senses. I will do stupid things. I will learn from them. I will hurt people. I will apologize and do better next time. I'm probably completely wrong about a huge flaming chunk of everything I know, but I'm constantly sniffing for new information that will reveal my wrongness so that I can fix it.

I am above hypocrisy because I refuse to absolutely certain of myself except in that I am certain that reason and skepticism are the path to real, useful knowledge.

Daarkseid

08-04-2007, 04:19 AM

Yeah well, I'll be the big man and admit I was prejudicial in dismissing the "Southern Christian Leadership Conference"

Not because of the word "Christian" though, but the word "Southern".

There I was being a hypocrite, and I'll probably try to be less presumptuous in the future.

Or maybe not. Fuck the south.

AtmaWeapon

08-04-2007, 01:12 PM

Ahahaha OK Daarkseid I'll give you that one I used to live there and really the only thing worth salvaging is the women, and even then the bulk of them need ballgags to remove their least endearing qualities.

Seriously I can't think of an organization that has tacked "Southern" onto the front of its name that I stand behind.

Also guys remember when Glenn used to talk like Beldaran and we all thought we were going to see him on the news? I believe it eventually resulted in a ban because he got more and more loony with each post and people were genuinely scared of him.

I should have posted sooner so my "Countdown to Beldaran turning this into 'they are a bunch of WITCHES and should be burned'" statement would have carried some weight. Also seriously "I am right all the time because I know I will make mistakes and when I do I will learn from them that means I don't make mistakes got it?" Does anyone buy that? This is probably the third time that I've delivered facts to the data stream of your head and it's clear the only reason you don't believe them is they came from me.

Also I don't argue that this organization is right at all; "equal rights" organizations in general are home to hypocrisy that is quite possibly the only hypocrisy greater than or equal to than the tight-knit clicks in old Southern Baptist churches. I believe Dr. King was genuine and only believed in equality, but those that followed him seem to believe that they must be equal and receive extra consideration, which I disagree with wholeheartedly.

You can tell from the NAACP's statements that they are struggling to come up with a logical reason to support Vick, and I can only hope that they continue ridiculous moves like this so their power is weakened.

Beldaran

08-04-2007, 01:57 PM

Watch everyone, as Atmaweapon dismisses the scientific method as a self centered delusion.

AlexMax

08-04-2007, 03:03 PM

Wait a minute, I thought that this thread was going to be about how stupid Michael Vick was, not christianity, we've already beaten that dead horse to death.

And yeah, most christians are normal human beings, and some christians will use religion as a front to more self-serving motives, film at 11.

rock_nog

08-04-2007, 04:25 PM

Well, it was, but we already know what a horrible person Vick is - that these idiots are honoring him is news, though. And, of course, people couldn't help but notice "Christian" in the name. However, I think we can all agree that, regardless of Christianity's involvement, this whole business is just stupid. Point is, this thread is about that group honoring him, not Vick himself, regardless of the reason behind their stupidity.

Prrkitty

08-04-2007, 04:48 PM

*MY* point in starting this thread in the first place was to point out the fact that someone/some group/etc wanted to honor Vick.

And that idea... that someone (hell... anyone) would want to honor him just boggled my mind.

Honestly... what has he done in his life to be honored for? And on top of that... what might he have done/could he have done in his life that could/would possibly negate the aftermath of his dog fighting incidents?

I just... honestly... can't see it.

phattonez

08-04-2007, 11:45 PM

Here's what they said when I was listening to Opie & Anthony on Monday.

They saw where the NAACP was coming from by saying that we can't judge him yet. After all, he hasn't been convicted. However, they also recalled how the NAACP were all over the Duke Lacrosse Players before they were convicted.

Racism is stupid.

Cloral

08-06-2007, 02:27 PM

OK, so I think we're all in basic agreement, so that's good. I have to admit that I do tend to be a bit lazy when it comes to checking up on things. Half the time I don't even read all the posts in a thread if there's a good number of them, and that's a bad habit. So there's really no excuse for me not doing my homework, however I will say that it is quite misleading of them to name themselves thusly if they are indeed a 'civil rights' group.

Aegix Drakan

08-06-2007, 03:39 PM

*reads title and freezes*

Wha-Wha-Wha-Wha-WHAAAAT?

somebody wants to HONOR this guy after they found out he was involved in a Dogfighting scandal?

...Just what are these people thinking?

Cloral

08-06-2007, 07:03 PM

lol, apparently someone shares my bad habit!

mrz84

08-06-2007, 07:15 PM

Ok. I've heard about this guy on the radio news whilst going to work for the past week or so. After reading this, I must say that I am shocked and appalled by a religious group supporting such an individual. Religious groups have never been at the top of my list of favorite things. Maybe I thought church was too boring as a kid, but meh. To get to the point, they should probably not get mixed up with supporting somebody who will most likely be convicted of a serious crime in the first place. That's is my 2 cents. Now I am off to parts unkown. Well, not really. :kitty:

AtmaWeapon

08-06-2007, 10:07 PM

mrz84

08-06-2007, 10:38 PM

Worst. Troll. Ever.

Seriously I am struggling to comprehend how dumb this was.

I was just giving my opinion which I'm entitled to like everybody else on this forum. If you view it as dumb, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However I'd like to know how my post made me a troll. I meant no ill will to anyone save for Vick and possibly the group in question who is supporting him. :kitty:

AtmaWeapon

08-07-2007, 02:38 AM

Well you kind of missed an entire page of discussion about how the group in question is actually a civil rights group. The word "Christian" in their name is an emotional appeal kind of thing, kind of like how at school no one else gets to go to your "Advanced" classes and the reason they hit you is because they are jealous. :pirate::gavel:

Beldaran

08-07-2007, 03:09 AM

They are a religious civil rights group. There is nothing wrong with mrz's post.

The_Amaster

08-07-2007, 11:26 AM

I can't believe this. Their name kinda betrays them, though. I mean, Christian? Okay, I'm cool with that. Leadership? Okay, walking into dangerous territory. Southern? Whoa! Screams stupid extremists.

Guess it just goes to show you what members of the SCLC support in their spare time.

(Dog fighting, for those that didn't get it)

Beldaran

08-07-2007, 03:43 PM

I think it's absurd to assign such suspicion and hatred to the word "Southern" and not the word "Christian". Christians have been around much longer and perpetrated much more death, mayhem, and ignorance than the south could ever hope to.

Oh by the way, the whole slavery thing you're about to blame on the south? Yeah that was actually a christian thing. They quoted sections of the old testament to prove the god wanted white men to enslave black men. They were deeply religious people. Did it ever occur to you that christianity is a huge part of the reason the south is so insane?

The_Amaster

08-07-2007, 05:22 PM

No, no, you misunderstand. I have no problem with southerners in general. It's only when combined with the word Christian that I think it's a problem.

Cloral

08-07-2007, 05:48 PM

Now there's word that the SCLC have decided not to honor Vick after all. Reading the most recent story, it sounds like they never intended to honor him. Rather, they just invited him to attend their event, but he cannot because he currently cannot leave the state of Virginia.

The thing I heard several times in the new story is people asking us not to make a judgment on him until the court case is decided. And obviously, he is entitled to fair process before the law, just like everyone else. And when it comes to an organization like the NFL, whether they can take action without any sort of legal decision does get into a gray area. But I, as an individual, am entirely able to form a personal opinion based on the evidence available. For instance, do I have to believe that OJ or Robert Blake are innocent, just because a jury found them innocent? Of course not. That would be silly.

Prrkitty

08-07-2007, 06:41 PM

OK ... link to article verifying that the group has backed off from wanting to honor Dogboy <lol>.

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/17591

EDIT: Here's another link: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7100910

phattonez

08-07-2007, 06:43 PM

And Hitler used Darwin to justify his actions. This is the same argument which will take all of us nowhere, stop leading us there Bel.

AtmaWeapon

08-07-2007, 10:43 PM

Oh look Beldaran turning it into another religious argument I can't wait to see how this turns out!

I still say, Beldaran, that if you'd look at the web site you see very faith-neutral wording and very little to do with Christianity itself. I mean by now I'm pretty used to most conservative groups being unafraid to have a mission statement like
We strive to bring peace to men and women of all races through the loving power of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ the Nazerene, while spreading His message to all who have ears to hear and using the absolute fewest number of sentences as possible.I don't see much of that there, which led me to my point that the term "Christian" was likely placed in the the name to cause those sitting on the fence to apply a divine importance to their goals.

Of course you are free to suggest that having the word "Christian" in your name automatically makes you a Christian group, in which case I continue to press my point that the existence of the Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist conveniently makes you a Christian since you claim to be a scientist and obviously Jesus was too.

Prrkitty

08-15-2007, 02:10 PM

Well well well... seems as though Vick is close to admitting that yes he is guilty.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13898519/detail.html

Imagine that!

EDIT: Seems Vick just can't win for loosing... South Carolina Inmate Hits Michael Vick With '$63,000,000,000 Billion Dollar' Lawsuit Alleging Al Qaeda Ties

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293268,00.html

Prrkitty

08-20-2007, 03:17 PM

Okay... seems Vick has decided to accept a plea deal... of guilty! Duh!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/20/vick/index.html

His defense lawyer had this to say: "Mr. Vick has agreed to enter a plea of guilty to those charges and to accept full responsibility for his action and the mistakes he has made. Michael wishes to apologize again to everyone who has been hurt by this matter," Martin's statement said.

It's about time a sports player admitted guilt and took the punishment for their actions/reactions.

Glenn the Great

08-20-2007, 04:03 PM

I'm still struggling to understand the sensationalism around this issue. I mean yeah, I disapprove of big professional athetes and their attitude and big pay.

But really, dogfighting is a really cool and exciting sport. Most countries don't have a problem with animal sports, and they have an important history in many cultures, like the Spanish bullfighting. That is some of the most entertaining stuff I've ever watched.

Most Americans are just too sensitive.

Prrkitty

08-20-2007, 04:10 PM

Doesn't animal cruelty enter your thoughts when thinking about animal fighting... at all?

You say... '... important history in many cultures"... are you serious? The Spanish government is honestly rethinking their stance on bull fighting and are thinking of banishing the sport from their country... on the stance of animal cruelty.

Cock fighting, dog fighting... it IS animal cruelty. It is exploiting an animals need to dominate another of it's kind.

In nature it is one thing. When used as a sport... an entertainment for humanity... it should be illegal.

Cruelty of anything for humanities entertainment... is just plain wrong. But then again - that is just my two cents.

Glenn the Great

08-20-2007, 04:14 PM

Animal cruelty doesn't exist in my mind. Human cruelty, yes. But not animal.

phattonez

08-20-2007, 06:17 PM

Animals feel pain too. If I stab you in the stomach it hurts just as much as a dog getting stabbed in the stomach.

Glenn the Great

08-20-2007, 09:42 PM

Animals feel pain too. If I stab you in the stomach it hurts just as much as a dog getting stabbed in the stomach.

I don't buy that. I don't think the animals are sentient.

Prrkitty

08-20-2007, 09:46 PM

I hope to God that you NEVER own an animal. For if it ever breaks its leg, becomes ill or something like that... I can tell right now that the animal will suffer if it's in your care.

Animals with broken legs cry out in pain when that leg is jostled, moved around or something like that.

Animals might not be "sentient" as you are saying... but they DAMN SURE HAVE FEELINGS! (I need to go look up the meaning of sentient)

*politely leaves this discussion before I find myself banned from the board*

phattonez

08-20-2007, 09:47 PM

You've obviously never seen the killing of an animal, Glenn. They feel pain just as much as you do.

Aegix Drakan

08-20-2007, 10:28 PM

Excuse me Glenn, but you're overlooking one simple fact.

Humans are nothing more than highly evolved mammals.

Sure we have bigger brains, but in the end, we're not much different from the creatures we share this planet with.

If you're still not convinced, then here's another fun fact:

Pain is the body's way of delivering a warning that something is causing damage to the body in some way.

If animals couldn't feel pain, then they'd die incredibly quickly, because they would never know that something is harming them. And causing harm to another creature just for the sake of entertainment is just wrong.

Hypothetical situation: Aliens land on earth, deem us to be nothing more than low level, non-sentient animals, and kill us for entertainment. Would you have a problem with that?

...

...

...I thought so.

biggiy05

08-20-2007, 10:42 PM

I still stand by what I said earlier. Glenn has a very fucked up view of life and will be a very lonely person as the years go by because of it. This just adds to it.

Animals have all the parts and organs a human does and they feel pain just like us. My dog got her paw caught in the cage door and she was limping for a few minutes and whining from the pain. My horse was screaming when a stray dog bit her. They feel pain just like us and unless you can prove other wise you lose.

phattonez

08-20-2007, 11:06 PM

So back to topic, I heard that Vick pleaded guilty.

AtmaWeapon

08-21-2007, 01:20 AM

I think that as long as both dogs are of age they should be able to fight if they want to as long as they do it in their own homes and aren't hurting anyone else :)

AlexMax

08-21-2007, 11:00 AM

I think that as long as both dogs are of age they should be able to fight if they want to as long as they do it in their own homes and aren't hurting anyone else :)

How do you suppose a dog can give informed consent?

phattonez

08-21-2007, 11:04 AM

When I read that I thought he was kidding. I hope he was kidding.

So when do we get to hear the sentence?

Beldaran

08-21-2007, 11:08 AM

I hope Michael Vick gets fucked up the ass in prison.

Glenn the Great

08-21-2007, 12:17 PM

I hope Michael Vick gets fucked up the ass in prison.

He's got the muscle of an NFL quarterback, so he'll probably be safe.

biggiy05

08-21-2007, 04:06 PM

He's got the muscle of an NFL quarterback, so he'll probably be safe.

Yes the muscle of a pro football player is gonna save you from a group of horny convicts looking to screw something.

I don't know why he tried to deny it in the first place since he knew they were gonna find him guilty.

Prrkitty

08-21-2007, 04:42 PM

Animal cruelty doesn't exist in my mind. Human cruelty, yes. But not animal.

What I'm about to say is not meant as an attack... at all.

Glenn... I'm slowly coming to the belief/realization that you will voice outrageous opinions/thoughts/etc just for the "shock 'n awe" reaction to what you've had to say.

I know not whether you believe half of what you say but honestly it doesn't matter. I think it's a tactic of yours to get attention - be it good or bad attention. And then again it could also be a ploy, just as someone playing "devils advocate" is, to liven up what's being discussed at that moment in time.

AtmaWeapon

08-21-2007, 07:41 PM

How do you suppose a dog can give informed consent?They sign contracts with their paw prints OK?

Also Prrkitty are you just realizing Glenn is a pretty constant troll?

Beldaran

08-21-2007, 08:01 PM

I personally don't care if Glenn doesn't believe animal cruelty is legitimate. Frankly, I think it requires you to be a very emotionally dead and possibly hate filled person to not care about animal cruelty, but as long as he obeys the animal cruelty laws I don't care what he thinks about it.

Sort of like how I think you should be able to shoot drunk drivers on sight, but I don't do it because it's illegal. [I don't really think that.]

[I do think they should get 10 years in prison minimum for a single DUI, however.]

Prrkitty

08-21-2007, 09:04 PM

Also Prrkitty are you just realizing Glenn is a pretty constant troll?

I'd hoped what I kept seeing of his posts... wasn't a constant. Apparently it is.

From this point on I will not act/react to his wildly ludicrous and mostly outrageous comments/thoughts/opinions/etc.

It doesn't help me and it definately doesn't help him. For if I did it would be akin to 'enabling'. And I refuse to be an enabler.

<blah>

Now... back on topic... discussion of Vick. Seems everyone is waiting on the Football Officials to decide if he can or can't play anymore. Guess we'll see soon.

phattonez

08-21-2007, 09:08 PM

I hope he goes to jail so that the question does not even come up.

erm2003

08-21-2007, 09:21 PM

Even if he goes to jail there are already people predicting he will be back in the NFL by 2009. The question comes down to what is more important to the NFL, their ethics or money.

phattonez

08-21-2007, 09:33 PM

Well there's an easy answer to that.

Prrkitty

08-24-2007, 03:35 PM

Ok... Vick admits to dog killing and conspiracy: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/24/michael.vick/index.html

I won't quote any of it. At this point I'm still a bit confused about *exactly* what he's admitted to compared to what he's being charged with... and what the prosecution will seek as a punishment.

Although this one comment kinda proves he's gonna get off easy:

-
Quote: Federal prosecutors agreed to ask for the low end of the sentencing guidelines.
-

... low end of the sentencing guildelines? A slap on the wrist and sent on his way?

Glenn the Great

08-24-2007, 04:12 PM

Well, it's the right outcome. Vick didn't really do anything. He certainly didn't do any more than the people responsible for putting dinner on the table the other night did.

He never did anything to anyone. Some animals got hurt, yeah. But that's nature. Animals kill eachother every day.

Vick has been the victim of sensationalism. Less than 1% of humans to ever live would consider his actions a crime. Those who do consider it one nowadays are mostly comprised of little old ladies like Prrkitty.

Beldaran

08-24-2007, 07:21 PM

I think you should be a little more respectful of Prrkitty. Would you talk to a woman in person with that lack of respect and manners?

Little old ladies are not the only ones disgusted by animal cruelty. They are probably outnumbered by young and middle-aged people with a well developed sense of ethics.

I think what Vick did is reprehensible and he should be banned from the NFL forever. He should also be forced to volunteer his time to animal shelters for a long time to come. He should also be ass raped by a dog. What a jerk.

While I don't like it when everyone is abhorrently mean to you, Glenn, I can hardly come to your defense in this matter. I can't emphasize enough how much I disagree with you. Animal cruelty is sick.

biggiy05

08-24-2007, 08:16 PM

He never did anything to anyone. Some animals got hurt, yeah. But that's nature. Animals kill eachother every day.

Not in a forced fight like people put them through. When it comes to topics regarding animals it's best if you just don't even post in it.

AlexMax

08-24-2007, 08:17 PM

AtmaWeapon

08-24-2007, 08:23 PM

It's a pretty good troll too because practically every post he makes spawns 8 or 9 responses you guys just keep biting and biting!

Prrkitty

08-24-2007, 09:35 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/24/michael.vick/index.html

-
Quote: The National Football League has indefinitely suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick without pay, officials with the league said Friday.

Earlier, Vick admitted to participating in a dogfighting ring as part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in Virginia.

"Your admitted conduct was not only illegal, but also cruel and reprehensible. Your team, the NFL, and NFL fans have all been hurt by your actions," NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a letter to Vick.

Goodell said he would review the status of the suspension after the legal proceedings are over.

In papers filed Friday with a federal court in Virginia, Vick also admitted that he and two co-conspirators killed dogs that did not fight well.
-

A victory for animal abuse. :) This 'little old lady' is very happy.

biggiy05

08-24-2007, 10:02 PM

Trevelyan_06

08-25-2007, 03:10 AM

Sute

08-25-2007, 05:20 AM

I keep hearing about this on the tv's news and the interweb's news. It's crazy. Really shameful, too. It's seriously the exact same mentality as a little 4 year old putting two bugs in a jar, shaking it, and watching them fight. It's so lame of those types of people

I'm really against animal cruelty, I would like to get into a field of helping them out sometime, too. It really sickens me to see what crappy excuses people have to say when their animals are about to die from neglect and just horrible "care".

AtmaWeapon

08-25-2007, 06:36 PM

The part that I think sucks about this is that it will add to the bad rep of dogs like pit bulls. Most dogs are not mean tempered by nature, excluding Dalmatians, they have to be trained to be mean. Things like this though make people think that certain breeds of dogs are viscous killing machines.The problem is even if the dog has been trained, some breeds were bred to do violent things.

Let's use pit bulls for an example. The purpose of the dog was to attack a bull if it appeared as if it would attack a farmer. The dog was bred to have powerful jaws so it could basically latch on to the bull and never let go no matter how hard the bull fights. The dog was bred to be powerful and attack animals many times larger than itself, so it's doubtful that a pit bull would be intimidated by the size of a person and naturally avoid violent behavior towards people.

Even if a pit bull is trained to be well-tempered, his natural instincts are protective. A lot of times people have trouble making "threat/safe" analysis of other people, and dogs have this problem too. However, when a person makes an incorrect judgment there is often an opportunity to reason with them and convince them their decision was wrong. It is much more difficult to reason with a pit bull.

This problem is made more difficult with the fact that, through language context and understandings of friendships, most people can interpret friendly violent actions such as noogies from chokeholds. Dogs are not so good at this.

Honestly I don't think the dogs should be banned, but I do think the "oh whatever if you raise a dog right they are perfectly safe" attitude is a bit foolish. The owner should be responsible for keeping the dog leashed or behind some form of fence at all times for the safety of others.

Glenn the Great

08-25-2007, 07:03 PM

It doesn't really sound like the dogs actually get forced to fight.

They take two dogs, and put them in a ring. Everything else is up to the dogs. Dog A runs in, and sees Dog B, and thoughts of carnage and violence flood its fleshy id-dominated mind. It strongly desires to kill Dog B, and starts doing so.

Maybe the dogs should just not attack eachother? :shrug:

The whole issue is absurd. Our culture has gradually started to value animals more than people. Killing endangered animals often carries greater penalties than the murder of a human. Maybe it has something to do with too much watching of cartoons featuring anthropomorphic talking cute animals.

For the God-fearing crowd, how might you explain the Old Testament animal sacrifices? It's like God gives permission to kill animals because they don't have souls, and thus even though the animal body writhes in pain, there is nothing inside of it actively "feeling" anything.

erm2003

08-25-2007, 07:09 PM

It doesn't really sound like the dogs actually get forced to fight.

They take two dogs, and put them in a ring. Everything else is up to the dogs. Dog A runs in, and sees Dog B, and thoughts of carnage and violence flood its fleshy id-dominated mind. It strongly desires to kill Dog B, and starts doing so.

The reason why they fight in the first place is usually because they are beaten and mistreated to the point where they become aggressive or they are starved so when they are put into the ring with another dog, killing the other dog (they think) is their opportunity to eat.

If either of those two situations are true, doesn't the whole thing go back to the responsibility of the owner(s)?

phattonez

08-25-2007, 08:50 PM

Glenn, the animals were egged on to fight. You have to dogs in a ring, if they don't fight, you have to intentionally make them mad to get them to fight. They won't always just fight on their own.

Trevelyan_06

08-26-2007, 03:35 AM

Honestly I don't think the dogs should be banned, but I do think the "oh whatever if you raise a dog right they are perfectly safe" attitude is a bit foolish. The owner should be responsible for keeping the dog leashed or behind some form of fence at all times for the safety of others.

I agree. I didn't mean to sound as if I thought that every dog breed out there is a big friendly teddy bear that just wants to lick your hand. Owners do need to be responsible for the dogs and realize which breeds are good with kids, etc. and which aren't.

What I was referring to more was the fact that some people see that someone has a pitbull and even though it's behind a fence and leashed they have this absurd notion that it's going to break it's chains and go on an all out killing spree until the entire neighborhood is dead just because it's a pit bull.

They take two dogs, and put them in a ring. Everything else is up to the dogs. Dog A runs in, and sees Dog B, and thoughts of carnage and violence flood its fleshy id-dominated mind. It strongly desires to kill Dog B, and starts doing so.

The whole issue is absurd. Our culture has gradually started to value animals more than people. Killing endangered animals often carries greater penalties than the murder of a human. Maybe it has something to do with too much watching of cartoons featuring anthropomorphic talking cute animals.

First off, the dogs are starved, tortured and otherwise enticed to fight one another. Most animals will naturally avoid a fight if they can. When you say that Dog A "strongly desires to kill Dog B" you make it sound that the dog has in fact planed to murder the other dog. That's absurd, humans are the only animals that can carry out pre-meditated murder. The dog is simply hungry and hurt/defensive and sees in front of it both a source of food and a threat.

Secondly, WTF on the endangered animals thing? This (http://www.gc.noaa.gov/schedules/6-ESA/EnadangeredSpeciesAct.pdf) is a chart of the penalties for killing endangered animals. Seems that the maximum for KILLING and endangered animal for the first time is a mere $3500. If in fact you could kill a human and get away with less, than I think there would be lots more dead filling our graveyards.

Prrkitty

08-27-2007, 02:26 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/27/michael.vick/index.html

-
Quote:
NEW: Falcons owner says team won't cut Michael Vick right away
NEW: General manager: Team sends out "demand letter" for $22 million bonus
After dogfighting conspiracy plea, Vick says he's sorry for his actions
Judge sets December 10 sentencing date for Vick
-

So... the Falcons manager is not cutting him right away. I'm honestly surprised by this. He says...

Quote: "We cannot tell you today that Michael is cut from the team. Cutting him may feel better emotionally for us and for many of our fans, but it's not in the long-term best interests of our franchise," Blank said.
-

... not in the long-term best interests of the franchise???!!! In my humble opinion that tells me that MONEY is more the issue here (to the Falcons Manager that is) then the reprehensible actions of what Vick did.

<sigh>

biggiy05

08-27-2007, 02:42 PM

I was just watching CourtTV before I took the puppy for a walk and they said he was going to be suspended indefinitely and the prosecutors were asking for a 12-18 month prison term.

Beldaran

08-27-2007, 02:48 PM

Vick's a dick.

I wrote that not because it's meaningful to the thread, because the rhyme is funny.

phattonez

08-27-2007, 06:42 PM

^^Don't worry, we all know that it wasn't meaningful. :)

Even if the Falcons don't do anything, you know that the NFL will suspend him.

Glenn the Great

08-27-2007, 09:32 PM

The NFL is about playing football, right?

I don't follow football, but I get the impression that Vick is pretty good at what he does on the field. Isn't he?

Did Vick ever cheat in the game or use steroids? Did he gamble on any NFL games?

These are the sorts of issues that I can understand someone being suspended for.

Vick should just pay a fine for the animals, and then keep playing the game.

Gerudo

08-28-2007, 01:20 AM

More or less nowadays, if you play professional sports, what you do on the outside can affect what happens to you on the inside. Doing what he did is against Federal laws, obviously, he got in trouble with the Feds, not too mention lying (obstruction of justice or something other). Lots of people want his head. Suspending him was, in my opinion, for his safety as well as punishment for his activities outside the game.

I would be surprised if I saw him play football again.

One last note: Glenn, you just like to go fishing, so to speak, don't you? ;)
you know, hang that bait out there for everyone else to bite on it?

phattonez

08-28-2007, 01:24 AM

Well Glenn, that's true, but with public scrutiny, there's no way he can go unsuspended.

AtmaWeapon

08-28-2007, 03:00 AM

There's plenty of jobs where criminal activity can affect your employment status, so I'm not certain why it's a debatable issue.

Glenn the Great

08-28-2007, 09:01 AM

I think it's debatable because it's a case of collateral consequence.

It's the justice system's responsibility to punish Vick, not the NFL's.

phattonez

08-28-2007, 10:22 AM

So what if he was convicted of hit and run where the person he hit did not die. Would you suspend that person from the league?

Glenn the Great

08-28-2007, 01:13 PM

So what if he was convicted of hit and run where the person he hit did not die. Would you suspend that person from the league?

Nope. Hopefully he'd continue to hit and run on the field.

phattonez

08-28-2007, 02:20 PM

He will now be an ex-con. You try to get a job with that on your resume.

Glenn the Great

08-28-2007, 02:46 PM

He will now be an ex-con. You try to get a job with that on your resume.

You act as though there is nothing wrong with the status quo.

People should not have to report their conviction status to an employer.

Once you have done your time or paid your fine, things should go back to how they were before.

Whenever they aren't, that is collateral consequences. It is not a good thing; it is something that needs to be changed.

I am not complacent with how things are right now, as you seem to be.

Trevelyan_06

08-28-2007, 03:00 PM

You act as though there is nothing wrong with the status quo.

People should not have to report their conviction status to an employer.

Once you have done your time or paid your fine, things should go back to how they were before.

Whenever they aren't, that is collateral consequences. It is not a good thing; it is something that needs to be changed.

I am not complacent with how things are right now, as you seem to be.

So you see no problem with someone who is a convicted arsonist becoming a firefighter? A convicted child molester a school teacher or day care worker? How about someone who has multiple DUI infractions being allowed to get a license to drive a big rig?

There are reasons that a persons criminal record is considered when they apply for certain types of jobs. Certain crimes can not be "paid back" by simple fine or time spent in jail. There are consequences of certain crimes that go far beyond that.

I sincerely hope that you are once again merely playing devils advocate Glenn and don't seriously believe that all criminals, once released from jail, are reformed citizens that should have that sames rights as everyone else no matter what crime they committed.

phattonez

08-28-2007, 03:04 PM

If I were an employer, I would think twice before hiring someone who was convicted of cocaine possession to do finances for my corporation. Glenn, if you're an employer, you want the best, and therefore, you want to know as much about them as you can. If you want to hire an ex-con, more power to you. For me, it would be a detriment to their application.

Glenn the Great

08-28-2007, 03:17 PM

...and don't seriously believe that all criminals, once released from jail, are reformed citizens that should have that sames rights as everyone else no matter what crime they committed.

I don't believe that they all are reformed, but I believe that many of them are. I also believe the number that are is much higher than you might expect. Also, I believe that recidivism may be encouraged by the frustration created by collateral consequences.

I'm trying to stick up for those who have reformed, have served their time, and wish to pick up their life and move on.

I'm sure you wouldn't like to be in their situation. (But of course, you are probably of the mindset that you will never be in their sitation, since you are such an upstanding citizen and such.)

Trevelyan_06

08-28-2007, 03:30 PM

I'm sure you wouldn't like to be in their situation. (But of course, you are probably of the mindset that you will never be in their sitation, since you are such an upstanding citizen and such.)

Of course I wouldn't like to be in their situation. Very few sane people would be. I can't know for sure that I will never be in their situation as I can't foresee the future. However, I don't believe that I will go.

What you are advocating, at least what I gathered you are, is that peoples criminal records never come into play. Even if they are murderers, rapist, arsonists, etc. That is insane. If someone truly wishes the reform and go on with their lives they have to face and accept what they did and have a reasonable burden to prove that they in fact won't do it again. Basically you are saying that someone should be able to get out of jail and go right back to what they were doing before committing the crime like nothing ever happened.

phattonez

08-28-2007, 03:39 PM

Glenn, I will say that some people do recover, and they have their crimes wiped off their record, and at that point, I do not think that they have to put that on their resume. I can understand why some crimes are impossible to wipe off and it should stay that way.

Prrkitty

08-28-2007, 03:53 PM

IF people were *TRULY* reformed when they left jail... there would never be repeat offenders. They would NEVER repeat the offense and would never have to go back to jail.

It's time that people take absolute responsibility for their actions/reactions in their life. Instead when someone does a crime... they plead innocent and act all innocent like "I didn't do anything wrong.... you didn't see me do it... you can't prove a thing"... EVEN when there are eye witnesses that SAW the person doing the crime.

AND on top of all this, Vick would not have been caught/investigated if his cousin hadn't been doing/dealing drugs and investigated for drugs.

Glenn the Great

08-28-2007, 04:38 PM

IF people were *TRULY* reformed when they left jail... there would never be repeat offenders. They would NEVER repeat the offense and would never have to go back to jail.

Here you are over generalizing. Your use of the word "people" refers to everyone, lumping every last convict into the category of repeat offender. It simply isn't so.

It's time that people take absolute responsibility for their actions/reactions in their life.

I take it that by absolute, you mean accepting an eternal (or at least life-long) consequence for an action? Sounds like the old Conservo-Christian mentality again.

I can understand why some crimes are impossible to wipe off and it should stay that way.

Would you care to go into further detail on these impossibilities?

Also, yet another instance of phattonez resisting change, like a good neoconservative.

Prrkitty is also a very fine person to give opinions on this matter, being a part of the "Off with their heads!" Salem Witch Trial (or rather, No Trial) culture.

Dechipher

08-28-2007, 04:40 PM

I don't believe that they all are reformed, but I believe that many of them are. I also believe the number that are is much higher than you might expect. Also, I believe that recidivism may be encouraged by the frustration created by collateral consequences.

I'm trying to stick up for those who have reformed, have served their time, and wish to pick up their life and move on.

I'm sure you wouldn't like to be in their situation. (But of course, you are probably of the mindset that you will never be in their sitation, since you are such an upstanding citizen and such.)

See Glenn, I wanted to reply with "You're fucking idiot" to everyone of your posts, but I decided it would not be in my best interests as that could be considered a flame. But moreso, I realized that you are an emotionally corrupt human being with no capacity to understand compassion or responsibility, and I figured posting that would only mentally damage you further, which is my larger motivation for refraining. Although it is incredibly difficult to 100% discern a person's personality and intent through text alone, I can confidently make a rough judgment of your character based on numerous posts you've made, and feel sound and reassured that I made the correct choice by not calling you a fucking idiot.

On topic, obviously I agree that this is an incredibly fucked up thing to do. As far as the NFL is concerned, I at first questioned whether the NFL is correct in taking it upon themselves to punish Vick. Then I realized that playing in the NFL is a JOB. If someone pulled this shit and they were, say a musician, they would not be able to get a job with an orchestra. If they worked at a gas station, they would probably be fired immediately. Just because the NFL is an entertainment-based entity does not mean it needs to stay out of its' employees' lives.

phattonez

08-28-2007, 06:57 PM

Would you care to go into further detail on these impossibilities?

Also, yet another instance of phattonez resisting change, like a good neoconservative.

Neo does not mean ultra, look up what that prefix means if you want a more effective insult.

The charges that I would never want wiped off the record are murder, rape, pedophilia, assault with a deadly weapon, drug possession, and some others that I can't think of. It would be very hard for me to trust these people, let alone hire them for a job.

Glenn the Great

08-28-2007, 07:01 PM

...and some others that I can't think of.

Beautiful. This sums it all up right here.

phattonez

08-28-2007, 07:05 PM

^^How does that sum it up? I can't possibly think of every single case that I would deem necessary to stay on a record for life. Can you think of all crimes that a human being can do?

Glenn the Great

08-28-2007, 07:27 PM

I can't possibly think of every single case that I would deem necessary to stay on a record for life. Can you think of all crimes that a human being can do?

Uh huh. All crimes a human can do should be on record for life. Thanks for being honest in your opinion already.

phattonez

08-28-2007, 07:34 PM

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you're saying that all crimes should be on record for life, but that employers should just ignore that?

Glenn the Great

08-28-2007, 07:42 PM

No. I'm trying to say that YOU might as well make all crimes on record for life. I was pointing out your "open clause" style of deciding what crimes should carry lifetime consequences.

I was expecting to see a few heinous things listed. The reality is that you didn't even really know. I saw very minor things like drug possession on your list, followed by an admission that you couldn't even really think of it all. It almost sounds more like you were struggling to think of some things that SHOULDN'T carry lifetime consequences. Or perhaps, that you were trying to sugar-coat the fact that you want lifetime consequences for all crimes.

phattonez

08-28-2007, 07:46 PM

Maybe this will make you happy, misdemeanors can be wiped off after a while and as long as there is no repeat behavior, and felonies should always stay on. But since nothing makes you happy, why should I even care. Apparently you would hire a cocaine addict just on a matter of principle.

Glenn the Great

08-28-2007, 07:57 PM

phattonez

08-28-2007, 08:03 PM

So you own a bank and one of the applicants was convicted of money laundering. Would you hire him because you think he would do a good job?

Prrkitty

08-28-2007, 08:39 PM

Prrkitty is also a very fine person to give opinions on this matter, being a part of the "Off with their heads!" Salem Witch Trial (or rather, No Trial) culture.

Glenn I have absolutely NO desire to cuss 'n discuss ANYTHING with you. I have come to the realization that your mental capacity to rationalize things isn't what it should be. And no matter what kind of a discussion I was in with you... we would never see eye-to-eye on anything.

So... if you think I am/was part of the Salem Witch Trial culture... so be it. You think what you want of me... I don't really give two hoots.

Trevelyan_06

08-29-2007, 03:23 AM

Glenn,

Before the discussion spirals anymore out of control we need to review a few keys points.
1. How is Prr a member of the "Salem Witch Trial" group? I have yet to see her going around accusing people of being witches, nor even have I seen her going around saying that things are "of the devil". Which, however, would be funny. Especally if she found amusing things to call "of the devil", such as mayonnaise.

2. You really should follow Phattonez's advice and research your insults. Calling him a neo-con implies that he once considered himself a liberal and then converted to conservatism (which is a fun phrase to say). I don't think this is the fact.

3. I don't think that Phattonez was attempting to say that all crimes should go on a persons record permanently. Instead he was merely saying that not being well versed in the various laws he could not produce a list of heinous crimes at will. Merely saying that he in fact wants all crimes to stay on a persons record permanently simply because it serves your argument does not make it true.

4. You do not put people who've committed certain crimes in a position in which they can easily repeat those crimes, no matter if they say they are reformed or not. It's irresponsible behavior towards society and the person themselves. For instance, you would not make someone who has committed a bank robbery an armed bank guard. Neither would you make a pedophile a babysitter. Even if the persons are reformed, truly reformed, there is no need to put the temptation on them.

Aegix Drakan

08-29-2007, 12:36 PM

As usual, Glenn, I can understand why you take that view, but I DO NOT agree with it.

First of all, there is a VERY big difference between saying "People should be held responsible for their actions" and "hey, crops are failing, the people are demoralized, so let's say that that weirdo over there is a witch, blame everything on them, and then kill them in public! cool! It's a popular idea! let's keep killing random innocents!".
As you can see, not at all the same thing.

also, I think that most crimes SHLOUD be on record, but it depends on the crime.

You should not get a record for minor felonies, and unless it's a major crime, it is not mentioned to employers unless it is related.

Ie, convicted bank robber will have his crime brought up if he tries to become a bank security guard.

I also think that if a drug user has reformed, it should no longer be referenced after X amount of years. Being turned down for a job for having experimented in high school is a bit stupid, IMO. Same thing if you shoplifted a T-shirt on a dare when you were a teen, or stuff like that.

But in all honestly, If someone has committed murder, rape, or pedophelia, it should DEFINETLY be referenced. If a person has commited a major crime, employers have the right to know just who they're hiring. If they decide to hire them, good for them. If not, the Government should try to find employment of some kind for them.

[/personal opinon]