-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
What a joke
- Thread starter Tommy78
- Start date
- Status
After what he did I see his attempts at goodness to not be real. People say that he served his time and that is that, but are child molesters seen as good decent people when they get out of jail and want to talk to children in a positive way? They served their time, yes, but does that mean everything is fine now? No. Some things just do not go away no matter what you do, especially crimes including ending lives. Basically his crime was over the line and unforgivable for me.
This is a good example of the logical fallacy "false analogy". By comparing Michael Vick's actions to much more extreme, albeit it superficially similar act we are supposed to come to the conclusion that the consequences and conclusions should be equally similar. This logical fallacy is the basis for Godwin's law, where eventually someone will make a comparison of the issue being discussed to Hitler and the Nazi party.
Thanks for the lesson. My point wasn't the actual crimes mentioned, but more about what the accused is trying to do afterwards and the notion that "he payed his debt to society and everything is now okay" when we all know that it's not okay when the accused tries to get involved in what sent him away in the first place.
In other words, Vick killed dogs, no one wants to see him near a dog, talk about a dog or look at a dog.
Random guy molests a kid, no one wants to see him near a kid, ect, ect.
That's why you posted? To quote the definition of the word "murder" and to tell me to not make Vick look like a horrible taker of life, but just a regular life taker? Can you explain your need to do this?
Edit: Seemed to have missed the last half of your post since it was not there prior.
Edit: Seemed to have missed the last half of your post since it was not there prior.
My point was they are not comparable situations. Child molestation is a sexual offense with clinical studies and history to demonstrate the likelihood of repeat offenses, hence we have Megan's law and other similar laws enacted to prevent any possibility for a registered sex offender from even having the opportunity to repeat the offense.
For Vick's crime to be comparable, we'd first have to elevate domestic animals to have the same legal protection as children. For example, anyone who accidentally hits a dog with a car could be arrested for petslaughter and sent to jail. You'd also no longer be able to euthanize animals, but instead we'd have to created animal hospices where there are kept to die "naturally" either under expensive medical care or in great pain.
In any event, both Michael Vick and the hypothetical child molester have indeed paid their respective debts to society once they have served their sentences. The molester is still legally bound to register in the community where they reside and is most likely barred from being in the vicinity of potential prey. There is no such law binding Vick and even though a lot of people feel there should be, the law says he is free to be around dogs now.
I doubt Vick would now jeopardize his NFL career by repeating his offense even to a much lesser degree. Only Vick knows his true motives in advocating animal rights, but if you are a proponent of animal rights, and Vick is an influential celebrity, I would think that any positive outcome would be welcome regardless of his history.
You're still missing it, man. Never mind the law and the severity of the crime. The only comparison here is that you do not want Vick near a dog just as you do not want a molester near a kid. Don't over think this, just let it flow. This is from the public's viewpoint. You may have to read up a bit to now understand what I was saying.
Or just read this again.
Knewz
Android Expert
How often is the public biased or just plain wrong? 9.5/10 times, but thats a rough estimate.
That doesn't make sense in this case. There is no right or wrong or bias, he did commit the crime, they have the right to really not like that fact and not want him near a dog or think he's full of shit when he acts like he wants to promote a dog bill. We're not talking about something that we think happened, it did happen. People are mad, don't put yourself out there with dogs again for any reason. At least not for a long long long time. It actually makes perfect sense if you think about it.
Sorry, I'd much rather mind the law, than not. You are entitled to your opinion but I (and the law) don't necessarily agree.
Now consider this ... Vick is not an idiot, nor are the highly paid agents and publicists who handle his public relations. If as you say,
Then why on earth would he put himself out as a public enemy and pariah if not for the sake of repentance and reparation? I rather get the impression that those who would much rather see him further punished than penitent are acting out of a sense of surrogate vengeance than that of justice.
Not if your opinion is based on prior facts and knowing what he did was intentional and the fact that he thought there was nothing wrong with what he did while he was doing it. You just don't stop thinking that way and turn around completely in my view (after all, he thought taking a dog and holding him underwater until he stops breathing was fine, among other things). People are telling him to do this to get his name out from under this cloud he has around him so he can make more money.
here's the key point for me. Had he thought what he was doing was blatantly wrong, immoral and cruel and did it anyway, then he should be viewed as an antisocial, amoral individual with impulse control problems severe enough to need to be monitored for the protection of society at large.
If as you say that he really believed what he was doing was okay, then he was ignorant of both the law and of societal expectations. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, he certainly wasn't excused. However, he also has been educated as to what is legal and correct in the society in which he now lives and is attempting to be exemplary. You may doubt his motives, but give him credit for overcoming at least some of his ignorance.
I still don't buy this argument. He can make infinitely more money through endorsements unrelated to animals, and he still has his football career (assuming the players and the owners don't shoot their own feet of with these negotiations of pure avarice). Financially he's better off distancing himself as far as possible from his past and yet he continues to confront it, admit his crimes and offer apologies.
Worse than the monster we have on our hands who didn't even know that it was not cool to fight dogs and then drown them? Not knowing something like that is not even human. I'm starting to get worried about what else he doesn't know.
I know what he does know. He knows he'd better get behind something positive that has to do with animals pretty quick so people get off his back. It's almost football season, you know. Too bad people are smarter than that and see right through him.
It's not about him getting "animal related endorsements". It's about no one wanting him anywhere near ANYTHING because of what he did.
While i doubt he'd ever get animal related endorsements anyway, he can make more money from endorsements then anything from the potential good will being an insincere animal rights activist (assuming he is just putting on a show for the cameras, which i don't believe)
I don't think is appropriate that you should be speaking for everyone, so I'll fix it for you.
"It's about me not wanting him anywhere near ANYTHING because of what he did."
I'm sorry, I feel like I'm talking to a wall here sometimes.
Dude, read post 41. I figured since we were having a conversation that you would know when I said "no one wanting him anywhere near ANYTHING", you knew that meant having Vick advertise for them or using his name on a product. No advertiser would "want him near anything" (meaning they do not want him to be a poster-boy for their product because of his crimes.). He lost all of his endorsement deals, no one wants to use him for advertising as they did before all of this happened.
Sorry, my bad. I thought you were still arguing keeping him away from dogs, not advertisers NOT using him for product endorsement. You do realize, however that not only has Nike re-signed Vick, he's received other product endorsement contracts as well? So in that context, you really can't say "no one".
It's a cultural thing, like cockfighting, an equally bloodthirsty form of entertainment. If he were Spanish and taunted bulls with short spears before he killed them all the while having their testicles tied to make them uncomfortable and aggressive, I suppose he and the 40,000 or so spectators would also be inhuman.
Let's not forget the people we pay to torture and kill little furry animals just because they annoy us, or the agony innocent rabbits are put though to assure our cosmetics and toiletries don't give us a rash when we want to look our best. And just for fun, let's give monkeys diseases and then see if we can cure them with unproven experimental drugs. People who can do those things are no human ... no, they are precisely human, as is Michael Vick ... an imperfect human being capable of making mistakes and capable of learning from them.
Except by your own argument, getting involved in anything animal related has gotten people back on his back and rekindled the controversy around his past crimes. Last season when he was playing great football, the controversy surrounding him at the beginning of the season has all but disappear and was nothing more than a footnote in the press. Only the most vocal and staunch animal rights activists still protested his reinstatement and success. If it was pure spin control, he could easily donate a wing to a children's hospital or set up a scholarship fund for underprivileged inner city youth and sidestep the animal issue altogether.
By putting himself in harm's way, as it were, he has -- just like alcoholics must do -- taken ownership of his errors and is, misguided or not, trying to atone in some way for them.
xmr405o
Android Expert
As much as I hate the crime he committed, it is my opinion and belief that he is reformed. I've seen and heard his interviews and I believe it when he says he's trying to do good. He doesn't come off as fake to me.
I could probably go on and say that I am 100% sure he won't do what he did ever again. I can't say the same thing for OJ Simpson, Kobe, Chris Brown or child molestors but Michael Vick I can certainly can.
Part of being punished for a crime is hoping that the person learns and in turn tries to prevent other people from making the same mistake he did. I think he's going about it the right way. It's not easy what he's doing so I actually appreciate what he is trying to do.
But of course, this is entirely my opinion.
I could probably go on and say that I am 100% sure he won't do what he did ever again. I can't say the same thing for OJ Simpson, Kobe, Chris Brown or child molestors but Michael Vick I can certainly can.
Part of being punished for a crime is hoping that the person learns and in turn tries to prevent other people from making the same mistake he did. I think he's going about it the right way. It's not easy what he's doing so I actually appreciate what he is trying to do.
But of course, this is entirely my opinion.
JnEricsonx
Android Enthusiast
I think anyone who abuses animals is scum. I might swat my second dog on the butt because she just ate a tray of brownies(true story), but the day my first dog died(which happened to be my birthday) I cried like I hadn't in 16 years following the death of a family member, because my dog WAS a family member. Dog fighting is abhorrent, and man, you are/were in the NFL, making bank, surely there's easier ways to have a party, so to speak?
Frisco
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
What's telling about dog fighting enthusiasts is that many of them have pet dogs who do not fight and who they grieve over when something befalls them, same as you express.
Reminds me of Adolph Hitler's love for a few pooches, while he went about his anti-humanitarian business of the holocaust. It's like those types of people have to keep one foot in the moral pool as personal "proof" that they are just doing their calling in life and are really good inside.
I view with great suspicion/caution what Vick is doing now. Is he rehabilitating himself, or is he rehabilitating his public image ($$$)?
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
If you are a dog lover, what Mr. Vick did is not easily forgiven. It is not that he just fought dogs; he did some really terrible things that go beyond sanity in the view of many people including myself.
We are told that abusing animals is a first indicator that someone could progress to doing terrible things to other humans.
I'll tolerate many things, but what Vick did was unforgivable.
We are told that abusing animals is a first indicator that someone could progress to doing terrible things to other humans.
I'll tolerate many things, but what Vick did was unforgivable.
robertj298
Member
So according to your train of thought, never mind the severity of the crime if you are caught speeding in a car you should then never be caught even near a car LOL
- Status