Is Michael Vick Setting a Bad Precedent for the NFL?

No actually, you don't. Do you know any felons? Apparently not.

Felons can't even be on the lease in decent apartments or rented homes...most property managers will balk at serious misdemeanors as well. Try getting a decent job as a felon. Like someone already said, you'd have a hard time getting a delivery driver job.

 

Mike Vick should get the death penalty for what he did!!!!! Man please...He aint kill nobody but a bunch of dogs that are used for violence anyhow...I see people driving on 45 with their dogs hanging off the side of their trucks...Thats animal cruelty!!!...Vick paid his debt to society although that was bs..now he trying to redeem himself through something that he's got God-given ability to do...So shut up and enjoy the Michael Vick show coming to a stadium near you soon...If you dont like it ....change the damn channel or better yet go buy dogs in protest.....GTFOH

 

So you're openly admitting that you think what Vick did was OK?


Wow.

 

this is getting tiring.

I DID NOT MISQUOTE YOU. Point of fact, I perfectly quoted you, twice.

Excuse: to serve as an apology or justification for; justify

this is exactly what's been going down.

i never said he did those things, i pointed out he was more likely to do so (btw, this was just one of my original comments on this topic, but happens to be the one which has struck a cord with some). This is true. I'm rambling on about it because you and others keep trying to act like it's not true. I never said he was a serial killer. I simply pointed out the high correlation between animal abusers and those who commit violence against humans, and moreover noted that I'm not on a vendetta against someone I don't like, but just think it should be considered that this correlation exists and Vick's role, stardom, prowess, potential economic windfall from his return to NFL glory should be considered with this in light.

no, it isn't pointless. on the contrary, it's a point...to be considered...as I've noted.

looking to what a felon might do in the future is something often taken into consideration.

great...i have a similar background. congratulations!

no, this isn't my line of thinking. this is your line of thinking of my line of thinking (confused??...yeah, it's kind of circular).

I've stated my line of thinking many times now over many posts in this thread, beginning on the first page. I'm sorry if you don't understand it, yet.

again, great. i continue to not prejudge, but you continue to say i am. please stop. i have adequate information and sufficient information in the form of Vick's past actions and knowledge on the issue to know that I'm correct when I say he is more prone to future violence, towards animals or humans. it's just fact.

you stating that my continuance of pointing out some of the things he actually did seems like a "snicker" shows me the attitude you have towards torturing animals. You have a problem with me pointing out what he did why exactly? What about highlighting his gruesome acts makes it like me pouring salt on an open wound? Nothing. Vick poured the salt himself, I'm just pointing it out.

Moreover, I'm very very very very interested in knowing why you think think they electrocuted the dogs? Because it's a proper way to dispose of an animal? weird. again, i'm biased (dog lover, pit lover, etc.), but rationale. I can't think of a rationale / logical reason anyone would ever do that. Was he tricked into it?

You think typing out "for giggles" somehow makes it as if Vick wasn't really doing it out of enjoyment, because giggles are cutesy little things that babies do and that happy people do when there in tickle fights. no, you're basically saying that you don't think they did it out of enjoyment. fine? that's your belief. then WHY did they do it?????

 

I didn't say I want him punished more.

It's not about destroying Vick's life or making sure he really gets punished because I don't think he's been punished enough.

NOT.

Maybe you read it without the NOT and with a comma after punished...but that's not how I wrote it.

I didn't say it wasn't. I said Vick's story was dominating when there are a lot of other, better stories to be heard that are being drowned out.

 

The Vick story is not stopping any story from being published. It's not like his story is being played 24 hours.


I always found people saying him killing dogs is a sign he would be a serial killer in the future to humans pretty funny. Read about that a lot on the Falcons MB

 

name another human interest related NFL story in the news??

 

Vick story has to do with his play on the field. If he was a backup and not starting there would be no story.

It just so happens that this guy playing great made a comeback from jail. 90% of Vick news is about what is happening on the field.

 

Third times the charm. Via copy and paste:

Nobody is using culture as an excuse in diminishing Vick's behavior they're saying that's why he did it.

So is:

nobody is using it to diminish or lessen what he did.

...or is that exactly what's going on?? they're saying that's why he did it.

I will not continue down this path. it's like arguing what the definition of is is.

great.

you are more likely to do Y. I don't know why you have a problem with that. I'm more likely to do Y as well. If someone is interviewing me to babysit their pre-teens and asks did you do drugs as a teenager and I am honest and say yes and that checks a box that kicks me off the list, that's not bad parenting, or being a bad person...that's just reality.

I would argue they consider the preponderance of the evidence - stuff you'e noted, what I've done in my time since, etc., etc. and reconsider, but won't be offended if they choose someone with a "cleaner" record.

I don't know why you're so offended by this concept.

on the contrary, you already pointed out a variety of reasons that, when taken in combination with your history long ago, make you much much much much less of a risk than Vick.

Moreover, we are now in the realm of completely random and non-specific hypotheticals, in that I have no idea what you did exactly, no idea what studies you are crediting that say you are more likely to do something (again, no idea what??) going forward, etc.

to be clear, it's okay for you to read into my words but when i read into yours, you're offended?

ok, well i will choose to use reason and logic and end up with the only logical explanations. enjoyment, convenient, cheaper...they may all be right, they are all disgusting. there is no sane reason to do it.

i will note, though, while i have no experience myself, again, using that thing called my brain, i'm pretty sure it isn't cheaper or more convenient. just thinking about possible ways to put down a dog....nope that one doesn't register on the cheap or convenient list.

 

no. the vick story has been a big story since it happened. sportsradio stations in town had in their mid-day news breaks updates about when Vick was let out and put on house arrest. it wasn't the story it is today, but he's been regularly in the headlines.

 

explain does not equal excuse.

i can explain to you why i drank 10 beers friday night, but that doesn't excuse it.

 

it doesn't need an excuse. I've provided a definition. Again,

Excuse: to serve as an apology or justification for; justify

his statement certainly did provide a justification for Vick doing what he did.

you don't have to apologize for drinking 10 beers, generally. if, specifically, you did have to apologize because it led to something else, then your explanation would likely be viewed as an excuse.

Explaining to your girlfriend that you forgot to pick her up because you drank 10 beers and got wasted because you were partying with your friends and one beer led to two and two led to ten will of course be viewed as an excuse.

Explaining to the judge that your were driving drunk because you had 10 beers and no designated driver and got wasted because you were partying with your friends and one beer led to two and two led to ten, will, of course, be an excuse.

doing the same, but with the underlying story being that someone forcibly held you down and forced you to drink 10 beers is even itself still an excuse, but in that case a justifiable one (well, not if you then got behind a wheel, but you get the point).

an excuse is an explanation, used as an apology or justification.

 

except when that person is saying over and over and over and over and over again that it's not an excuse.

 

well, the dictionary disagrees. here's another definition:

To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood

I kind of see your logic, but not really. It's like saying "this isn't an excuse...BUT" - well, it is an excuse, even though your qualifying it as not being an excuse.