I agree that we shouldn't cry racism every time something happens to a person of color. I've said that on GC before. That's not what I commented on, though. Your post seemed to insinuate that white men need a "leg up" if they're going to make it in the world. As if they've been held back and need some help getting back on top. THAT is laughable.

"Women have consented to spending time with their attackers and dogs can't consent to being around thier attackers therefore are assumed to have never consented" does not mean "you are comparing apples to oranges."
We are not comparing apples to oranges when saying there are NFL players who have committed more heinous crimes against PEOPLE who are still allowed to play and have gotten lesser punishments. Based on this fact Vick should not be villified and should be allowed to play. Fighting dogs is not as bad as driving drunk and killing a person. If that crime does not require getting kicked out then fighting dogs should not either.

Yes, it is comparing apples to oranges. Honestly honey, I don't think you understand what that phrase means.

I never said he should get kicked out. Read the posts. I said the Eagles are idiots for hiring him because they're going to be dealing with a nightmarish PR situation. The Falcons were smart and the Eagles are stupid. Period. Steelers got rid of Plaxico Burress for part of the same reasons - he was a pain in the ass and a PR nightmare. Putting the moral outrage aside, it is just an incredibly dumb business decision.

So the dogs didn't get a choice in the matter.

Did the dude "choose" to be hit by a drunk driver? By the logic you're leaning on, this becomes an apples-to-apples comparison, one in which Vick compares quite favorably to Stallworth, Little etc.

It's only a dumb business decision for the Eagles if it affects the bottom line - and "pain in the ass" or "PR nightmare" conjecture doesn't really indicate an automatic loss on the bottom line. However, winning a division, conference or (heaven forbid) Super Bowl title generally creates more than enough revenue to offset, well, anything - I'm not convinced this is even all that big of a deal from the Eagles' perspective. They can always walk away, and it's likely a one-year issue anyway. I don't see the risk/reward axis tilted as much as everyone else seems to.

I was starting to think that I was going crazy in the whole apples to oranges discussion. You've basically made the points I was making. And I agree that it was not a bad business decision because they've gotten a good quarterback as a back up for McNab and if he does bring results people will not care about the dogs.

Agreed - I get the PR aspect of it (I worked in PR/media relations for a bit), but I honestly think that a good performance this year will erase a lot of the public outcry. That, and I think in time the majority of people will feel less strongly about what he did. This isn't going to start some longterm downturn in ticket sales or marketing opportunities for the team. At most, it will have a short-term negative effect on those areas.

It's a pretty low-risk for the Eagles; they're only tied to Vick for a year, it's at a reasonable cost, and it gives them time to decide if Vick (not Kolb) is their quarterback of the future. They can also see if his accuracy issues were a product of his lack of receiving help in Atlanta, or whether it's just his own issue.

On Vick's punishment - again, I think the prison sentence was reasonable, and I don't have a huge problem with a suspension to start the season (although I would have been more comfortable with 2-4 games).

Ideally, I agree that someone like Stallworth or Little should get longer prison sentences and longer suspensions than Vick; what they did was a lot higher on the moral/criminal scale. But, I have a couple of problems with some of the comparisons being used here.

1) Little's crimes happened while there was a different commissioner in office. I would imagine that he would have gotten a similar suspension to Stallworth if it happened when Goodell was commissioner. If you want to say that Stallworth's suspension should have been longer/shorter in comparison to Vick's I could understand that thought a bit more.

2) I see the point with comparing Vick's sentence to Little and Stallworth, but I come out of the comparison a bit differently. Just because Little and Stallworth should have gotten harsher sentences (which they probably should have) doesn't really mean anything as far as Vick's sentence. In comparing the three cases, I think the "system" got it correct in Vick's case, and got it completely incorrect in Little and Stallworth's cases.

I'm positive that would not have happened in a low income white area with an elderly white woman. Positive.

Let's pretend it was a group of Black police officers only. People may or may not have called racism on the Black cop (because despite what whites say, they know they have white privilege in almost every mixed settings) , but they may have thrown racial slurs at the Black cops, called the police in hopes of getting white police there, and/or formed a white militia to overrun the authority of the Black police officers.

ETA: Whites have a tendency to feel more empowered in the presence of the police and other "authority" figures. Blacks are often afraid of the police and have been taught to stay under the radar to avoid the attention of the police. You saw what happened in that video where the Black people were shocked but still keeping their distance and even trying to get away from the scene. The one person who stepped in was her daughter who ended up being held by the police, I believe.

I think people need to get over what Vick did, especially since animal cruelty in other forms is widely accepted and called "training for a derby" or "getting pigs prepared for slaughter."

PETA are a bunch of loonies but they aren't the ones fighting this fight from what I see.

Since race was worked into this thread I do believe that, of the people who are holding this grievance against Vick, whites seem to be the ones who care about this. (I won't bother translating that to those of you who are thinking "well, I'm white and I don't care" or "not all whites care"---DUH). I have yet to see a nonwhite person who still gives a damn in person or in the media.

Do you think it's because Vick is black, and blacks are defending him, or because non-whites are less likely to be interested in animal rights issues?

I think a number of things are at play. All of them are correlates of race.

First not all Black people defend Blacks just because they're Black. We are not one minded, although many Blacks do not put animals on the same level as people. We have had too many other things to worry about as our history in the U.S. reflects.

You may want to re-read Munchkin's post...that's not what she said.

Please re-read what I wrote. I know that "we are not one-minded." :)

how about stop being white trash?

WOW...RU OX Alum, come on! Why would you make such a racist remark? If you think someone is trash, which I doubt anyone on this site is really trash, why does it have to be "white" trash? Why would you even say such a thing? This has to be a joke...In another thread you said something really hateful and generally you are an awesome person. I'm hoping you are just having a bad day or someone hacked into your account. I know you can't be this rude!