Again, this is bullshit. Are you able to follow simple logic? I do not like (and won't CHEER for) ANYBODY that takes pleasure in the torture and killing of animals for pleasure. Vick did it for sport for YEARS. There is no hypocrisy. The corporations (who employ countless people) you point out did not endorse any of this behavior. It's a matter of a single individual being responsible for his own actions. I put my money where my mouth is by NOT cheering for those individuals either.
So if Vick was a convicted pedophile, you'd let him babysit your kids (if you have any) because he seemed to change publicly? If you say no, then you are judging him. You wouldn't FORGET what he did, would you? Well, I don't forget what Vick did, and I won't cheer for him...unless he was rescuing a baby from a burning building or something like that. Do you think there could possibly be some kind of ulterior motive for Vick to project himself as "reformed?" And here is the big question...would there be any point to where you'd be convinced that he clearly "repented" enough to put that kind of trust in him...to babysit your kids...just because he seemed to get a whole lot better? And for the people that are unable to put things into context, I'm NOT comparing what Vick did to pedophilia, nor do I feel a football player demands this level of trust. It's just an analogy to illustrate that you don't know shit about him. I learned about what he did, and I could never cheer for somebody who did what he did. That's it.
I'm not against Vick, I just didn't want to give up on Sanchez yet. Still think he has something to offer, and he's still fairly young. Edit: Sorry, didn't catch the context of the thread. I'll leave now.
I'm calling him a pussy. Pussies aren't winners. It's one thing for him to not want a charade and an entire other issue when he drops out of an interview specifically because he initially assumed Oprah would steer the narrative towards his victimhood like CBS et al. He made the charade by torturing dogs and then made the charade by using the National media to share his side of the story, as opposed to focusing on abuse prevention. In retrospect he was given Bonds on Bonds-esque treatment. I give him credit that he's smart about his image but it also makes him a giant pussy.
You're crying hypocrisy but acting as though doing significantly less evil isn't preferable to doing more evil. If I donate money to help supply more clean water in Africa am I a hypocrite for not also adopting impoverished African children? Should I just move to and marry an impoverished area of America if I want to see improvement there? Putting your money where your mouth is implies action just as much as it applies consistency. Supporting the ethical treatment of animals partially is clearly better than not supporting it at all.
He deserved everything he got he did some terrible things but at some point where do we start learning forgiveness, I truly understand some of the Jets fan who will never forget but learn to forgive.
So because some corporate fat cats say they don't endorse that behavior that means it's fine for you to give them your money. OK. good news, Mike Vick doesn't endorse dog fighting anymore so go ahead and root for him. Either shut up or stop giving your money to fund corporations that are repeatedly found guilty of these abuses you fucking HYPOCRITE.
I forgive him as a human being but I don't want current or "former" murderers, pedophiles, and animal abusers (among other crimes) wearing my favorite sports teams' jerseys ever. Would it be okay to hire Jerry Sandusky as a coach after he got out of jail, assuming his physical torture sentence had been the same length as Vick's physical torture sentence?
Whistleblowing against human rights violations is apparently hypocritical if done covertly. It's best to explain to those who don't understand as opposed to engaging them in conversation about things they're either too stupid or irrational to comprehend.
I truly respect your position but let's never equate child molestation to dog torturing. What Vick did was a horrid crime but child molestation is a different crime all together.
"I'm not into animal cruelty like you Jets people" - My PETA supporter love of my life. And neither am I.
Lol I was engaged to a vegan for a few months, she had some good points to why people shouldn't eat meat but I'm not giving up my porterhouse for nobody lol.
It's complete hypocrisy that these same people who are bitching up a storm about Vick won't blink for a second when buying bacon made from pigs that had their balls ripped off and heads smashed with bowling balls for fun by factory workers. I don't expect you to understand because you are afflicted with the mental disease of liberalism. I'm not getting into a discussion with you further as all you do is endlessly talk in circles. Other people can waste their time with your pontifications.
There is a lot of documented evidence of the hypocrisy of PETA. There is a whole website dedicated to tracking the kill ratio of the shelters they run which says that they kill about 89% of the animals they bring into their shelters. Some PETA members even got arrested for throwing the corpses of adoptable pets into dumpsters. They also want to rename fish "sea kittens" so children won't want to eat them...that's not hypocritical just hilariously stupid. Kind of getting off topic of the thread though. We can argue semantics all we want about who is a hypocrite and who has poor morals because they cheer for a player who years ago was involved in something terrible. I don't think any one side is going to completely agree with the other and change their perspective so there isn't much point debating it endlessly. My take on it: What he did was terrible but where do you draw the line? Some people act like this is the worst thing any human being has ever done. There are guys playing the game that have straight up murdered other people and raped women who didn't even do any jail time for it and those guys don't get half as much shit for it as Vick gets for his transgressions. Sounds bad but if I had the choice between some buy killing random dogs in my neighbourhood VS killing one of my family members or raping my mom, wife or sister it's no contest: sorry dogs, I feel bad for you but I just value human life more. If that makes me a terrible person then I guess I'm a terrible person.
Talk in circles, that's the phrase I've been trying to remember. You do talk in circles. It's not my fault that explaining things to those that don't understand is incorrectly perceived by some as talking in circles.
Why must I choose between banning the animal abuser and the murderer or DUIer? Why can't I advocate for the recruitment of players who do none of this?
Please elaborate. Are you arguing that when comparing two crimes we must label one better and one worse? Label one very bad and the other not so bad? I'm arguing that when something crosses a moral line from acceptable to reprehensible that it should be treated as such independent of all other persons or reprehensible events. The two crimes (molestation and animal abuse) are incomparable in many ways but that doesn't say anything as to whether animal abusers are more rehabilative than molestors. Nor does it say anything about which acts are forgivable (or what it would take to earn forgiveness).
