Do you care about Vick coming back?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Wow. Noop you are...

rehashing an old thread.

No, this thread is rehashing an old thread. Now, I have no problem with that in the least, but it seems pretty logical that - no matter how the original post is phrased - any talk about Michael Vick's crimes and his eventual return will lead to the same discussion as the last thread. After all, isn't that what was being discussed back then, too? His crimes and his eventual return?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

I was just wondering why one is considered more evil then the other.

Why dog fighting is worse than hunting, horse racing, or dog racing? I think we tried to explain that to you last time, I think it's fair to say that you just disagree on this, and that's fair.

But what's your point? Our democratic society has decided that some things should be legal and some things illegal. Those decisions were made before Michael Vick started committing crimes. You're not required to agree with the laws. You are required to follow them.

Obviously you're dancing around the racial implications again. If you think that dog fighting is illegal only because it's a "black thing", I would say you're dead wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion. (I would also disagree that dog racing is a "black thing", and I have no idea why some are actually trying to enforce that sterotype to make their point).

I think though, that you might have a little more peace over this situation, if you tried, just for a second, to have an open mind. Consider the possibility, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to you, that many people find dogfighting disgusting regardless of the races involved. You can't seem to see this possibility. This is why people think you're a racist.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by molson

Why dog fighting is worse than hunting, horse racing, or dog racing? I think we tried to explain that to you last time, I think it's fair to say that you just disagree on this, and that's fair.

But what's your point? Our democratic society has decided that some things should be legal and some things illegal. Those decisions were made before Michael Vick started committing crimes. You're not required to agree with the laws. You are required to follow them.

Obviously you're dancing around the racial implications again. If you think that dog fighting is illegal only because it's a "black thing", I would say you're dead wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion. (I would also disagree that dog racing is a "black thing", and I have no idea why some are actually trying to enforce that sterotype to make their point).

I think though, that you might have a little more peace over this situation, if you tried, just for a second, to have an open mind. Consider the possibility, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to you, that many people find dogfighting disgusting regardless of the races involved. You can't seem to see this possibility. This is why people think you're a racist.

I wasn't even talking about race. I was talking about why is it okay for people to profit off horses and greyhounds. Do not project on to me your own guilty thoughts because if I want to call something racist I will say so point blank.

[Kodos]

If it had been Bill Romanowski involved in this, my feelings would be the same. The man should never be allowed back on the field.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

I wasn't even talking about race. I was talking about why is it okay for people to profit off horses and greyhounds. Do not project on to me your own guilty thoughts because if I want to call something racist I will say so point blank.

So you're asking why it's OK to profit off of a legal activity and not an illegal one?

OK, there's a pretty easy answer to that (So easy, that I wonder if you're actually being sincere). Profitting off of an illegal activity promotes and encourages the illegality, and thus is against public policy. Plus, any money "earned" from an illegal activity tends not to be reported on tax filings.

I guess you've changed your mind on all the race stuff, which I admit was fresh in my mind having recently read that thread.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by molson

Obviously you're dancing around the racial implications again. If you think that dog fighting is illegal only because it's a "black thing", I would say you're dead wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion. (I would also disagree that dog racing is a "black thing", and I have no idea why some are actually trying to enforce that sterotype to make their point).

Personally I never looked at dog fighting as a black thing, here in SoCal those that are caught usually are Caucasian or Hispanic from my memory.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by molson

So you're asking why it's OK to profit off of a legal activity and not an illegal one?

OK, there's a pretty easy answer to that. Profitting off of an illegal activity promotes the illegality, and thus is against public policy.

I guess you've changed your mind on all the race stuff, which I admit was fresh in my mind having recently read that thread.

Okay so it's legal so why doesn't PETA make a big stink about it during those events? It has nothing to do with race and more to do with why are they so selective in who they chose to spew their venom. The same is true for dog lovers why are they not up in arms about greyhound racing.

[Kodos]

Noop is one of those guys that is just pointless to argue with. He thinks everyone is racist because he is.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Noop

Okay so it's legal so why doesn't PETA make a big stink about it during those events? It has nothing to do with race and more to do with why are they so selective in who they chose to spew their venom. The same is true for dog lovers why are they not up in arms about greyhound racing.

Have you ever gone to said events?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

Okay so it's legal so why doesn't PETA make a big stink about it during those events? It has nothing to do with race and more to do with why are they so selective in who they chose to spew their venom. The same is true for dog lovers why are they not up in arms about greyhound racing.

PETA makes a huge stink about horse and dog racing, and everything associated with those industries. And dog lovers are definitely against the mistreatment of racing dogs. Yes, they're probably even more upset about dog-fighting, because that's even worse (which you don't agree with, but trust me, almost everyone else does).

And this whole story is higher profile because it's a celebrity. If Tom Brady beat and tortured a racing dog that he owned, he'd get some "venom", I assure you. If he financial supported such behavior on a huge scale, he'd be doing prison time.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Noop is one of those guys that is just pointless to argue with. He thinks everyone is racist because he is.

Who is bringing up race? I am asking a question stop projecting your thoughts on me.

[Kodos]

Why didn't you jump to the defense of Geoffrey Dahmer? He was just eatin' folks.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by molson

PETA makes a huge stink about horse and dog racing, and everything associated with those industries. And dog lovers are definitely against the mistreatment of racing dogs. Yes, they're probably even more upset about dog-fighting, because that's even worse (which you don't agree with, but trust me, almost everyone else does).

And this whole story is higher profile because it's a celebrity. If Tom Brady beat and tortured a racing dog that he owned, he'd get some "venom", I assure you. If he financial supported such behavior on a huge scale, he'd be doing prison time.

You know what you answered my confusion with this because I was confused as to why Vick caught the hate he did. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with his celebrity status. I don't usually associate athletes as celebrities so that is where I was missing it.

[Kodos]

FWIW, I think dog-racing should be banned too. And with horse-racing, I just don't understand why anyone would follow it. They stand around showing sentiment-filled imagery for an hour, and then the race is done in a couple of minutes. Where is the entertainment?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Noop

So is playing poker with your friends illegal if it is for money?

My understanding is that if the "house" doesn't take money, it is legal. Someone is free to correct me.

As for the topic at hand: I certainly don't want to see him doomed to failure like some others. I'm really rather indifferent. I root for guys that are known to have done "good things" in their life and with their celebrity,b ut I don't root against guys who have gotten mixed up into trouble. Do I want someone with a questionable past in the locker room of my favorite team? Not really. Do I want him barred for life from the NFL? No. I think he should at least be suspended for the length of time that people with other legal violations are suspended for (drugs, starting riots in strip clubs, etc). I think a 1/2-1 yr suspension at a minimum, then put him on a short leash if any team will take him.

FWIW - I think any convictions outside of non-reckless traffic violations (there are probably a few other exceptions) should result in suspension. Domestic abuse, drugs, DUI, etc, etc.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Noop

You know what you answered my confusion with this because I was confused as to why Vick caught the hate he did. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with his celebrity status. I don't usually associate athletes as celebrities so that is where I was missing it.

Where have you been for the last, oh, four decades? Of course athletes are celebrities.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Where have you been for the last, oh, four decades? Of course athletes are celebrities.

I don't think of LeBron the same way I think of Paris Hilton.

[larrymcg421]

I think Vick is a savage piece of subhuman waste that doesn't deserve to work at a gas station much less play in the NFL.

It's not about race. It's not about celebrity. He beat and murdered dogs. This is not someone who got mixed up in something bad. He consciously took part in illegal activity where animals were maimed for sport, and consciously took part in executing dogs that weren't good fighters.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Noop

I don't think of LeBron the same way I think of Paris Hilton.

I don't think of Chiuauas the same way I think of German Sheppards, but they are both dogs.

I don't think of "Daddy Day Care" the same way I think of "The Godfather II", but they are both feature length films.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Noop

I don't think of LeBron the same way I think of Paris Hilton.

Racist.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I don't think of Chiuauas the same way I think of German Sheppards, but they are both dogs.

I don't think of "Daddy Day Care" the same way I think of "The Godfather II", but they are both feature length films.

Okay. LeBron is an NBA player and so is Mouhamed Sene, so is the latter a celebrity as well?

[DanGarion]

celebrity
One entry found.

Main Entry:
ce·leb·ri·ty Listen to the pronunciation of celebrity
Pronunciation:
\sə-ˈle-brə-tē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural ce·leb·ri·ties
Date:
14th century

1 : the state of being celebrated : fame 2 : a famous or celebrated person

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Noop

I don't think of LeBron the same way I think of Paris Hilton.

Originally Posted by Noop

Okay. LeBron is an NBA player and so is Mouhamed Sene, so is the latter a celebrity as well?

OK, I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or if you're really this dense. Just because you don't think of them that way, that doesn't mean it's not true. Anyone with reasonable intelligence knows that the top players in basketball and football, and to a lesser degree baseball and hockey, are celebrities. You may not look at them that way, but around the nation as a whole they are clearly celebrities. Michael Vick certainly meat that criteria, as does Lebron James. Clearly Mouhamed Sene does not, and hopefully you're just being an ass by making that point and it isn't that you truly don't get it. (this coming from a guy that is often an ass by bringing up points he doesn't agree with on this board, just to prove the point)

[flere-imsaho]

AWESOME

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Noop

Mouhamed Sene, so is the latter a celebrity as well?

I'm sure he is in Senegal.

[DanGarion]

From Wikipedia entry.

A celebrity (or simply as celeb) is a widely-recognized or notable person who commands a high degree of public and media attention. The word stems from the Latin verb "celebrare" but one may not become a celebrity unless public and mass media interest is piqued.

There are degrees of celebrity status which vary based on an individual's region or field of notoriety. While someone might be a celebrity to some people, to others he may be completely unknown.

A global celebrity on the other hand is someone who is known by most people or is a mainstream celebrity. Such a celebrity is also known as either a household name or superstar. For example, Virgin Director Richard Branson was notable as a CEO, but he did not become a global celebrity until he attempted to circumnavigate the globe in a hot air balloon and generate publicity for himself. Another high profile categorisation of celebrity status is the A-list, based on the marketability of celebrities.

Generally speaking, a celebrity is someone who seeks media attention and most frequently has an extroverted personality. The desire to be notable is implied by some to be a part of Western culture and more specifically the American Dream as a measure of success. A celebrity that shys away from the public eye or keeps a very separate private life is called a reluctant celebrity. A notable example is Kurt Cobain. At the other end of the spectrum, a celebrity that seeks out publicity for him- or herself is often called a media tart, whereas one that uses his or her private life as a vehicle for enhanced celebrity status, sometimes desperately, is referred to as a media whore. Examples of this are fake or planned relationships, reality television appearances, celebrity nudity and in extreme cases, scandal or celebrity sex tapes.

There are a wide range of ways people can become celebrities, from their profession, appearances in the mass media, beauty or even by complete accident or infamy. Instant celebrity is the term that is used when someone becomes a celebrity in very short period of time.

In some places, someone that somehow achieves a small amount of transient fame through hype or mass media, is stereotyped as a B-grade celebrity. Often the stereotype extends to someone that falls short of mainstream or persistent fame but seeks to extend or exploit it.

In the 20th Century, the insatiable public fascination for celebrities and appetite for celebrity gossip has seen the rise of the gossip columnist, tabloid, paparazzi and celebrity blogging.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

Okay. LeBron is an NBA player and so is Mouhamed Sene, so is the latter a celebrity as well?

All athletes are not celebrities, nor are all celebrities famous.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

OK, I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or if you're really this dense. Just because you don't think of them that way, that doesn't mean it's not true. Anyone with reasonable intelligence knows that the top players in basketball and football, and to a lesser degree baseball and hockey, are celebrities. You may not look at them that way, but around the nation as a whole they are clearly celebrities. Michael Vick certainly meat that criteria, as does Lebron James. Clearly Mouhamed Sene does not, and hopefully you're just being an ass by making that point and it isn't that you truly don't get it. (this coming from a guy that is often an ass by bringing up points he doesn't agree with on this board, just to prove the point)

I was making that point to Go Blue.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by molson

All athletes are not celebrities, nor are all celebrities famous.

Look at what Go Blue posted that is what I was replying too.

[Noop]

I meant Blue not Go Blue

[Kodos]

You have something against the Blue Man Group? Racist.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by miked

The best part about the original thread was this tidbit from Ben:

The Falcons went 11-5 and were near the bottom of the league in attendance.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Kodos

You have something against the Blue Man Group? Racist.

You continue to project.

[gstelmack]

I will say that as long as Leonard Little remains in the league Goodell is going to have a hard time keeping Vick away...

[Ben E Lou]

Oh, and of course my opinion is that I couldn't possibly care less what an athlete does off the field. He is on that field to entertain me, pure and simple. If he can still do those crazy darts and dodges, he will entertain me. If not, he'll be boring to watch and I'll have no interest in watching him.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

All athletes are not celebrities, nor are all celebrities famous.

Originally Posted by Noop

I meant Blue not Go Blue

What he said. Seriously, if you don't understand thess simple points you're either stupid or just trying to be obtuse for some reason or another. I'm pretty sure it's the latter, which is much more frustrating and annoying than the former.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Oh, and of course my opinion is that I couldn't possibly care less what an athlete does off the field. He is on that field to entertain me, pure and simple. If he can still do those crazy darts and dodges, he will entertain me. If not, he'll be boring to watch and I'll have no interest in watching him.

Agreed. But the rules are: you get in trouble outside of football, you get suspended. They've already set that precedent, so Vick should just be susceptible to comparable players. Granted, I don't know any that have received multiple year prison sentences in today's league, but I might just not be a big enough sports nut. But the Packman suspension seems like a fair comparision -- Packman wasn't even convicted.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Agreed. But the rules are: you get in trouble outside of football, you get suspended. They've already set that precedent, so Vick should just be susceptible to comparable players. Granted, I don't know any that have received multiple year prison sentences in today's league, but I might just not be a big enough sports nut. But the Packman suspension seems like a fair comparision -- Packman wasn't even convicted.

Well, technically Vick has been suspended for two years.

Edit: and Packman for 1 year.

I don't agree with Ben on this, but he's at least consistent and it's difficult to argue with his stance outside of, "I don't see it that way".

[Kodos]

To support the Blue Man Group, I blue myself.

[gstelmack]

When did Packman intercept a K?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Oh, and of course my opinion is that I couldn't possibly care less what an athlete does off the field. He is on that field to entertain me, pure and simple. If he can still do those crazy darts and dodges, he will entertain me. If not, he'll be boring to watch and I'll have no interest in watching him.

If said athlete raped my wife or any other persons wife then I couldn't watch him. Regardless if he's paid his dues. Just like if he's been convicted of violently treating and killing dogs.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Agreed. But the rules are: you get in trouble outside of football, you get suspended. They've already set that precedent, so Vick should just be susceptible to comparable players. Granted, I don't know any that have received multiple year prison sentences in today's league, but I might just not be a big enough sports nut. But the Packman suspension seems like a fair comparision -- Packman wasn't even convicted.

Pffft. Like I care about the NFL's rules. As far as I'm concerned the NFL needs only one rule: "Does Ben find this action/player/strategy entertaining?" If yes, then do it. If no, then don't.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Well, technically Vick has been suspended for two years.

Edit: and Packman for 1 year.

I don't agree with Ben on this, but he's at least consistent and it's difficult to argue with his stance outside of, "I don't see it that way".

Well, there you go. Although I don't know that I feel the jailtime should count -- I never really "Got" serving tome concurrently. But I think the NFL needs to be consistent, whether we like it or not. AS someone said, he technically was convicted of any cruelty charges. Granted, Goodell has shown himself willing to not bother himself with actual convictions. I think the best thing for the NFL to do is let him play rather than having some contracted fight, and have Vick fall on his face and fail. That's best for the NFL, IMO. My guess is that they really don't want to let him play and to let him fade away without preventing him the opportunity would be the best route. Dunno. It depends on how much Vick is willing to fight for the opportunity to play in the NFL if it is denied to him.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Pffft. Like I care about the NFL's rules. As far as I'm concerned the NFL needs only one rule: "Does Ben find this action/player/strategy entertaining?" If yes, then do it. If no, then don't.

I think that one rule opens a door for a lot of really sweet changes to the NFL.

[wade moore]

I think Vick is VERY motivated to fight for a chance to play.

You seen his checking account lately?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Pffft. Like I care about the NFL's rules. As far as I'm concerned the NFL needs only one rule: "Does Ben find this action/player/strategy entertaining?" If yes, then do it. If no, then don't.

CHEETER!

[flere-imsaho]

Ben (and others) may certainly feel that way, but it's likely that the majority of the NFL's potential audience think Vick (off the field) is a jerk. If so, it's also likely that Vick's reinstatement will have a measurable deleterious effect on the NFL's image and, more crucially, its revenue generation.

While we might speculate that Goodell's decision will be based on some sort of ethical or moral standard, it's probably at least as likely that it will be based on the likely negative effect on the league if Vick is reinstated. Thus the issue of how Vick is perceived "off the field" definitely does matter.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

While we might speculate that Goodell's decision will be based on some sort of ethical or moral standard, it's probably at least as likely that it will be based on the likely negative effect on the league if Vick is reinstated. Thus the issue of how Vick is perceived "off the field" definitely does matter.

Yes, and we saw how Goodell dealt with pacman - I'm guessing the resolution here will be similar. Vick will be allowed to play, but he'll be subject to additional rules, restrictions and scrutiny that other players aren't. There will be zero tolerance in terms of getting in any trouble (regardless of whether the trouble is dog related), and he'll probably have to be involved in charitable work/donations. The restrictions alone will probably scare teams away from making him a QB. Maybe he gets a shot as a "slash" type player.

I'm sure Lenoard Little would face a simlar deal, if his crimes happened today (Goodell can't go back and punish Little for stuff that happened a decade ago).

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Ben (and others) may certainly feel that way, but it's likely that the majority of the NFL's potential audience think Vick (off the field) is a jerk. If so, it's also likely that Vick's reinstatement will have a measurable deleterious effect on the NFL's image and, more crucially, its revenue generation.

I've made my position known on this issue - but..

Do we really think this to be true? Do you think TVs around the nation will turn off if Michael Vick gets reinstated? Do you think NFL Shop will close down? Do you think that outside of maybe a short term (and I think VERY short term) loss to the team that signs him that there will be any real financial impact?

[Sun Tzu]

I'll take the "no, I don't care of he comes back" option.

Meaning...I actually could care less.