Michael Vick and Job offer - Page 6

Senusret I · #1 08-14-2009, 09:48 PM

I spoke about this a little bit today on my facebook status.....

First of all, I am not one of those animal-spooning PETA people.

Nor am I one of those race people.

I AM one of those people who is irritated by hero-worship. If the issue is the BLACK MAN BEING HELD DOWN or BACK or wherever it is white folks are supposed to be putting me, then I can probably count thirty actually regular black dudes who have been victims of institutional racism or injustice in some way worse than Michael Vick.

In fact, how about we start with my entire graduating high school class for having the misfortune of being from a DC Public School?

It annoys me that Vick is some black folks latest cause when there's so much more to be done for ACTUAL black people living right next to me.

Fuck Michael Vick. I don't care what happens to him. I DO care what happens to the 14 year old who saw me at McDonald's this morning and said "Mr. Darden!" and filled me in on his life since the last time I saw him. I was his teacher. He remembered my name. I made an impact on him in some way. He's not out there killing dogs. Good for him. Good for me.

Where's his award? Where's mine? We don't get one -- we DO get to NOT be in the news for being fuck ups though! And that's good enough for me.

knight_shadow · #2 08-14-2009, 09:50 PM

^^^

Senusret I · #3 08-15-2009, 12:02 AM

Something tells me white men will be okay.

Munchkin03 · #4 08-15-2009, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Something tells me white men will be okay.

I know, right?

I.A.S.K. · #5 08-15-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl

No, dipshit, that is not what I said.

I said at some point, women chose to be in the company of their attacker - unless they were mugged on the street/raped at gunpoint. None of which we are talking about here. I did not say they chose to be raped or get AIDS or whatever or were "asking for it" or are responsible.

These animals never, ever chose to be in the company of Michael Vick or any of his equally sick asshole friends. This isn't Animal Farm where the animals can revolt, although it would have been the bomb diggity if it were.

Why do people freak out more over the rape of a baby than the rape of a grown woman? I mean, I'm sure that baby will forget all about it by the time it grows up. Babies don't know any better. (This is called SARCASM by the way.)

Clearly you missed the point. The woman is not more responsible (than the dog) because she may have chosen to spend time around her attacker. What is the point in saying that a woman consented to being around her attacker before being attacked? It is irrelevant. If the dogs chose to be around Vick or the others would that make what they (Vick & Friends) did any less criminal or vicious? No. Clearly you missed the SARCASM in my comment about the dogs leaving. Yeah, dipsh*t, funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by als463

Are you serious? How come everything has to turn into a race war when a minority commits a crime or does something wrong?
This isnt a race war. I dont understand why it is so scary for some people for race to be mentioned. My claim isnt that he was found guilty because he's black. He's guilty and was found such. I did say that his being black influenced how he was sentenced. In his sentencing the judge did not feel he was remorseful enough. Trying to guess whether or not a person is sorry enough is dificult to do. The person's public image will play a role in how he's viewed by others. The fact that he's black and a celebrity (who was portrayed as a hip-hop thug) IMO influenced his sentencing. Is that so farfetched? If Vick were a clean cut "wholesome" looking young white man he would seem more believeable to many people. Including those in the media, the court room, and the general public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

He actually got a pretty good deal. The federal government was ready to press racketeering charges against him. If they convicted him, which I believe they would have been able to, he would have gotten a $250,000 fine and or 20 years in prison.

If he had been brought up on those charges and gotten 18 months then that would have been a very good deal. But on the funding the dog fighting I think he could have gotten less time.

I.A.S.K. · #6 08-15-2009, 12:20 PM

PETA Killed 95 Percent of Adoptable Pets in its Care During 2008

Hypocritical Animal Rights Group’s 2008 Disclosures Bring Pet Death Toll To 21,339
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/press...fm/release/258

And in VA no less. Shame.

Psi U MC Vito · #7 08-15-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

If he had been brought up on those charges and gotten 18 months then that would have been a very good deal. But on the funding the dog fighting I think he could have gotten less time.

He was facing 10 years and got 3. That seems to be a pretty sweet deal to me.

als463 · #8 08-15-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

He was facing 10 years and got 3. That seems to be a pretty sweet deal to me.

Agreed...

33girl · #9 08-15-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Clearly you missed the point. The woman is not more responsible (than the dog) because she may have chosen to spend time around her attacker.

Clearly YOU missed the point. As I said, it is comparing apples and oranges. (If you don't know what that means, check wikipedia) You and BP were the ones who brought up "well Joe Limpdick only got 3 days in jail for raping 3 women." What Joe Limpdick got has nothing to do with Michael Vick.

I.A.S.K. · #10 08-15-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl

Clearly YOU missed the point. As I said, it is comparing apples and oranges. (If you don't know what that means, check wikipedia) You and BP were the ones who brought up "well Joe Limpdick only got 3 days in jail for raping 3 women." What Joe Limpdick got has nothing to do with Michael Vick.

"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.

KSig RC · #11 08-15-2009, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl

Clearly YOU missed the point. As I said, it is comparing apples and oranges. (If you don't know what that means, check wikipedia) You and BP were the ones who brought up "well Joe Limpdick only got 3 days in jail for raping 3 women." What Joe Limpdick got has nothing to do with Michael Vick.

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.

DrPhil · #12 08-17-2009, 10:32 AM

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.

Munchkin03 · #13 08-17-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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?

DrPhil · #14 08-17-2009, 11:28 AM

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

rhoyaltempest · #15 08-17-2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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?

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.