Is Michael Vick Setting a Bad Precedent for the NFL?

So now, every convicted felons cant have a job? If they changed and want to be back to the society and contribute, then you have to give him a job.

till now, Vick has showed that he changed, lets hope he stay that way.

 

I think this is the dumbest crap I heard the first go round, Vick has no history of violence against people. guy grew up thinking fighting dogs was alright. he wasn't some future serial killer, killing the neighbor's pets.

 

MLB player's association would - but they are strongest of the unions. It is hard to argue with giving him a second chance.

It is just unfortunate in our society that a famous person tends to be forgiven after a crime moreso than the average Joe. That being said, if Vick was stinking up the place, we'd really be hearing the negativity, from many more places other than Bruce Springsteen's guitarist.

 

I never said he should not be allowed to have a job. I said that if that particular employer chose not to hire felons, I would have no problem with it. If they went that way, the NFL would not be the first or last to not hire felons. Like the current NFL, there are other employers that do hire felons, so jobs would still be available. In fact, losing the NFL as a potential employer would not make a noticeable dent in the number of jobs available to felons.

 

Will people please stop comparing regular jobs to sports jobs.


Newsflash a lot of things that athletes do you would not get away with at a normal job.

 

THANK YOU.

My god in heaven I get sick of hearing this daily.

Like the Texans for example: "If I didn't do my job correctly, I'd be FIRED!"

It's not the same.

 

Your response is way dumber (thats right, dumber) than what I wrote. It basically ignores considerable scientific study in deference to your "it's okay, it was cultural" attitude.

You are aware what Vick did, right? No, not just "fighting" dogs, specifically the ways he systematically violently and disgustingly tortured, abused, forced bred and killed in the most disgusting ways these animals.

It has nothing to do with cultural upbringing (though if it did, so? - I know people whose parents and family are racist - that doesn't make it less bad if they were racist - which they aren't), but has to do with a few screws loose psychologically troubled individual. This is unquestionably a guy who was a higher probably for future violence, towards animals or humans (his brothers been arrested multiple times, including for firearm possession). Ignoring that reality is idiotic. Ignoring science is idiotic. Ignoring logic is idiotic.

 

the studies that you are referring to have nothing to do with dog fighting, its a totally different subject. yes I'm aware of how they got rid of losing dogs, still your study has nothing to do with that

unfortuantely that's what dog fighters do, and that's the point.

again, was everyone at those dog fights psychologically troubled? You're projecting, and yes,you are ignoring that this was just a part of those guys' lives

I'm not ignoring any reality, you're making up one, he has no history of violence against people, dude is 30, we have some years for this to have happened.

 

I haven't referred to any specific study - I've referred to studies generally linking animal abuse (is what Vick did) with human violence (unfortunately focusing on this somehow diminishes how bad his animal abuse was). I'm not quite sure why you think this doesn't fall perfectly in that category.

Yes, people at dog fights have psychological issues. As do people at **** fights. As do people who enjoy torturing ants, etc. Being "cultural" doesn't make it acceptable or sane.

How about this - tell me a sane reason to be invloved with dog fighting. Explain to me rationally how it's just like being entertained by the movies? Explain the underlying emotional triggers... Of course you can't because at it's core it's not something that is "rational".

You're continued excuse that "it was just part of their" lives is troubling. Because it's an excuse. It's like saying slavery was just part of Americans lives in the past.

 

because unfortunately a lot of people dog fight.

why don't you answer this, do you think people who watch boxing or MMA are insane

 

More excuses? It's cultural. Lots of people do it.

Half the country thought slavery was ok.

For your question, no I don't think boxing / MMA fans are insane. Of course, that's apples and oranges. There's no torture involved. Nothing is being forced into it, etc. The two aren't comparable.

I answered yours, you answer mine.

 

stop putting words in my mouth. i never said dog fighting was okay, i said it was stupid to argue that vick is prone to violence against humans.

and until he does something violent to a human, i'm right, and that accusation is silly.

 

And I noted you were wrong. Years of scientific study suggests so.

Congratulations on not answering my question, though.

 

what question? anyway so now we're reverting back to "studies" that you don't want to cite specifically?

when vick does something violent against a human, besides making them look silly when trying to tackle him, come talk to me

 

I asked you a specific question a few post ago to which you responded by asking me a question, which I answered.

Are u capable of using google - I am on an iPhone. Google animal abuse human violence.

This isnt about what he's done. We know what he's done and it's horrible. This is about what he's prone to do. As an animal abuser, Vick is more prone to be violent to humans, generally.

Note, as I alluded to already though, it's sad that were ignoring him being more prone to be violent and abusive towards pets and animals, which is sick itself, and which we of course know to be true.

 

yeah, we ignored him to the tune of two years in federal prison. and you want to let him not play for what he MIGHT do.

edit: the same way a reasonable person get be entertained by a linebacker trying to take quarterback's head offf.

but I understand, you more "reasonable" people care more about dogs

 

Now you're putting many words into my mouth. Please reread the thread. This started with me noting a concernfor him continuing to be abject towards animals and importantly human, based on the proven link between abusive of the two.

You didn't like that because he hadn't been abusive to humans, yet. Fine, I noted the studies suggest a psychological issue to link the two, but you said it was cultural and something a lot of people do. Then you got mad when I called those excuses. You refused to answer my question regarding what sane motivations would lead a normal individual to associate with dog fighting, continue to refuse to acknowledge the real link between animal abuse and human violence, and now have tried to paint the picture that it's wrong to be concerned about Vick's proneness to hurt animals going forward, and worse, have accused me of putting pets above humans.

 

Question asked hOur and half ago.

 

you deny that dog fighting is cultural for some of these guys? do you think a bunch of psychopaths find each to kill dogs?