This is how Vick makes it back to the NFL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morphie

and if they are verifiably sane, it should be considered a capital sin.

---

I do not see how any one can watch the pain and agony of anything (besides two adult human's with the mental capacity to understand the situation and the repercussions of their actions) and be mentally sane.

I for one love to watch UFC. There is nothing better then watching two grown men beat each other into retardation. I love to see the blood and broken bones and the sheer will it takes to fight in the ring. You put two animals in the ring that feel like they have no choice but to fight or die, then I have to disagree with the situation.

Two grown men mutilating each other :gj:

Animals, children, other innocents ( I thought there was a puking icon)

Sorry I thought this thread was getting kinda heavy... needed some humor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emilio

Let me make one thing clear I was disgusted with what he was doing, but if you objectively look at his punishment and everything he lost he paid big time.

---

Do you think he has learned his lesson? Do you think he is a changed man really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

Pro football is not a sport.

It's a business.

It's sole purpose is to generate income for the owners.

Silly people who think they play for the fans.

Someone will pick him up. He's got talent. Talent sells tickets. He's got notoriety, which also sells tickets.

Pro football is NOT about sportsmanship and setting good role models for our youths, it's about making just as much as you can just as fast as you can for as long as you can.

He'll play somewhere.

---

Sadly this is a true statement. The owner don't give two farts about the fans except the fan actually is disillusioned into thinking the franchise cares about more then their money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuzeBallPythons

& how did you arrive at that conclusion? That was absolutely not what I wrote. I would like crimes against animals to be recognized with more importance than they are now (which is with very little importance). I'm not sure how this thread became an argument about how the punishment does/does not fit the crime when the OP posted about how Vick is able to make it back into the NFL after what he did. It has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with how some members of society seem to think it is so important for this man to play football that they can forget how he made these animals suffer.

---

Ok, my bad I assumed that was exactly what you were saying because of what you quoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

According to the law, and society in general, dog fighting is much much less of a crime than murder, or even selling drugs. It's understandable because of that, he is not equatable to murderers and hardened criminals. That's just how it is in the books, and how most people view it. Animal lovers are a special breed who give more care to furry, scaly, and slimy friends. However, they are a minority of the population.. Take this as you will.

---

Quote:

---

I will repeat this again, I am not arguing about the law. But about society's perception of animal abuse.

---

Unfortunatly, you are unable to argue one without arguing the other. Guess where our laws come from? Society's perception of the crime.

I am an animal lover, that much is apparent with the variable zoo in my home. But I also understand that animals, most animals, including dogs, are not sapient creatures, so crimes against them are lesser than most any crime against a human. You are still saying that he is getting off easier, but that has been shown to be blatently false. Both in criminal proceedings, and in the terms of money.

Once he has done his time. He is free to do everything in his power (minus the new stipulations placed on him) to achieve the American dream. And I will support that because he has repaid his debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purrrfect9

These so called 'animal rights' also vary from state to state as well. I'm ashamed to say it, but we still have puppy mills, and Oklahoma statistically has the highest amount of puppy mills in the united states. It is my opinion that we have THE WORST animal rights laws in the States. I know of an exotic zoo here that houses tropical birds and reptiles in an indoor barn that has no heat or air conditioning. This is a HUGE building, so these tropical birds are all but freezing to death. But the owner is not punished because he provides food, water, and shelter (the barn) from the elements. No where in our state laws state that he has to provide additional heating... The same thing goes with his reptiles. Apparently some animals have more rights than others in the good ol U.S. of A.

---

I am sorry, it is called states rights, it is one reason we fought for our independance. Like I said above, society writes laws, because states have the right to write their own laws (more or less), it is the society in that state that is to blame. Don't like the laws in your state? Use your purchasing and voting power to change them.


And just for the record.
http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...477#post940477
Dated 12-20-2008, 08:58AM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

I have not been able to watch football without getting angry at what it has turned into in years. But it used to be Green Bay. Same with baseball. Used to love watching both of them. I just can't do it anymore. Not a slight against anyone that does enjoy it, just my opinion.

Now the only sport I really watch is Rugby. But even that is seldom because they really don't broadcast much of it here in NC.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

Unfortunatly, you are unable to argue one without arguing the other. Guess where our laws come from? Society's perception of the crime.

---

This is exactly what I am referring to, but I do not think you are reading my posts clearly.

I am not discussing Vicks. I am discussing society's views of the crimes he committed. Perhaps I am clarifying this now.

As for crimes against dogs (or any animals) being lesser than most any crime against a human, I agree. I will emphasize MOST any crime. However, other sports stars (& other celebrities for that matter), have raped, physically abused, etc. PEOPLE, and there were members of society that still believed that once the prison sentence was served, they should go back out to earn millions and enjoy stardom. My disbelief stems from how desensitized (I will repeat that in case it was missed in the previous post) some of society is in regards to crime in cases such as Vicks'.

& now I conclude my participation in this thread because I think I have made my point. I respect your opinion because I understand that you are looking at this from a legal standpoint (which maybe the case for many other people also), but I am looking at it from both a legal, and moral, viewpoint. So as I respect everyone's opinion, I expect mine to respected also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuzeBallPythons

This is exactly what I am referring to, but I do not think you are reading my posts clearly.

I am not discussing Vicks. I am discussing society's views of the crimes he committed. Perhaps I am clarifying this now.

As for crimes against dogs (or any animals) being lesser than most any crime against a human, I agree. I will emphasize MOST any crime. However, other sports stars (& other celebrities for that matter), have raped, physically abused, etc. PEOPLE, and there were members of society that still believed that once the prison sentence was served, they should go back out to earn millions and enjoy stardom. My disbelief stems from how desensitized (I will repeat that in case it was missed in the previous post) some of society is in regards to crime in cases such as Vicks'.

& now I conclude my participation in this thread because I think I have made my point. I respect your opinion because I understand that you are looking at this from a legal standpoint (which maybe the case for many other people also), but I am looking at it from both a legal, and moral, viewpoint. So as I respect everyone's opinion, I expect mine to respected also.

---

Ok, I understand that. I believe that once you violate the rights of another person, you should forever loose some rights of your own. We see this in loosing the right to vote and leagally owning arms. But as far as continuing with your life, and making a living I morally believe that if you have made it out of prison, then you should be allowed to attempt to make a life for yourself (be it fixing tires, or playing football, or whatever you can do legally). If you have not repaid your debt, then you should not have been let out of prison. Smell what I am stepping in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

Ok, I understand that. I believe that once you violate the rights of another person, you should forever loose some rights of your own. We see this in loosing the right to vote and leagally owning arms. But as far as continuing with your life, and making a living I morally believe that if you have made it out of prison, then you should be allowed to attempt to make a life for yourself (be it fixing tires, or playing football, or whatever you can do legally). If you have not repaid your debt, then you should not have been let out of prison. Smell what I am stepping in?

---

Ok. Maybe I am not done with this thread.

I do understand exactly where you are coming from. And you are presenting your argument in an intelligent and compelling fashion. You are saying that if he is not allowed to get his life back that our justice system has failed. My argument is that (& you mentioned this before) our justice system is substantially based on society's perceptions of crime. After all, slavery was quite legal for a long time. So, I don't think that our legal system is flawed (well, not completely. I manage a law firm so I get to see some of it first hand), I think society is flawed in this respect.

The way you present your argument that he has repaid his debt to society and should be allowed to resume his career as a football player because it is what he knows how to do to earn a living, is thought-provoking (&, honestly, I could agree to his being allowed to play football again to earn a modest living, but I would be apalled if he went back to making millions). But comments referring to how much better his team will be when he's back on & how he's already done his time anyway so let him back on so that the team can kick some butt again are the ones that truly disturb me. Do you understand where I am coming from? It seems to me that many are just not taking seriously what he did, and that football is just more important. And this could very well be my flawed perception, but it is truly how I feel.

I am pleased to see you again. I enjoy a spirited honest and friendly debate, and you do present your stance well. So thank you.

Yes, our justice system is flawed, and I honestly believe that any justice system anyone comes up with will be inherently flawed because of a few simple things. And this may seem a bit off topic (well the whole conversation is kind of off topic, but the discussion has kind of naturally evolved), but I will tie it in, in the end. Crime and punishment. You commit a crime, and you are punished, we have went to crime and punishment, and rehabilitation. While it is good to try to rehabilitate, we can only rehab those who want to better themselves, and not end up in prison again. So the focus of prison needs to be punishment, or in another way of saying it, forcing them to repay their debt. If they do not “learn their lesson” then they will be back in prison. Unfortunately that is the only way it will work, because you can not, and never will rehab someone who does not want to be rehabbed. The only thing you can morally do, is let them mess up again, and eventually take them out of the society for good.

Now, I do agree that some of the punishments for some of the crimes committed against animals are not proportionate. So like I said before, we use our purchasing power, and our voting power to change them. For example. If we do not think that Vicks has been punished proportionate to the crime, we do not purchase any merchandise for any team that plays him. We go out and get a Neilsen Machine for our TV and do not watch any game, any sportscast, or news about that team, and we also, through power of our vote, do not support any politician that supports lesser punishments for these crimes. But that can be a tossup from time to time, because we may agree with other politics that, that politician supports. It is a long fight, but in the end, if you are tenacious in your fight, you will have effected change in your sphere of influence, and that is all you can hope for.
Now, back to a criminal getting out, and being forced to work at a lower wage. While some would see this as them getting their just desserts. I would argue that it would be a failing in the capitalistic nature that has made this country great. So, if he has served his time and received his punishment under the current law, I could not in good conscience support that. It would be akin to saying that if I, a normal person, got out of prison, and got a job cleaning dishes, I would have to earn less than a normal person working the same job. True the dollar amount is different in the two scenarios, but the ethics are the same. By making either he or I work at a lower wage, we would essentially take away from the whole. The impact would be lesser with the dishwasher, but it is the same thing. You are taking away the reward for success. Does he deserve to be successful? That is debatable.

So what do I think will happen to Vicks if he is not allowed to play ball? Well, he will go back to another profession, that probably is not so legal. And in the long and short of it, will be taken out of society yet again. In the end of it, that may be better. But by not allowing him to play, we have expanded the boundaries of the law, and retribution beyond what they should. And if can happen to him, then it can happen to us.

I hope this makes sense to you. It does to me, but sometimes my brain gets to working weird.

I'm a football fan and a pit bull owner, but there is no excuse for what Vic did to those dogs. He should be banned from ever playing pro ball again and also should have been given a longer prison term! He's a thug. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

I am pleased to see you again. I enjoy a spirited honest and friendly debate, and you do present your stance well. So thank you.

Yes, our justice system is flawed, and I honestly believe that any justice system anyone comes up with will be inherently flawed because of a few simple things. And this may seem a bit off topic (well the whole conversation is kind of off topic, but the discussion has kind of naturally evolved), but I will tie it in, in the end. Crime and punishment. You commit a crime, and you are punished, we have went to crime and punishment, and rehabilitation. While it is good to try to rehabilitate, we can only rehab those who want to better themselves, and not end up in prison again. So the focus of prison needs to be punishment, or in another way of saying it, forcing them to repay their debt. If they do not “learn their lesson” then they will be back in prison. Unfortunately that is the only way it will work, because you can not, and never will rehab someone who does not want to be rehabbed. The only thing you can morally do, is let them mess up again, and eventually take them out of the society for good.

Now, I do agree that some of the punishments for some of the crimes committed against animals are not proportionate. So like I said before, we use our purchasing power, and our voting power to change them. For example. If we do not think that Vicks has been punished proportionate to the crime, we do not purchase any merchandise for any team that plays him. We go out and get a Neilsen Machine for our TV and do not watch any game, any sportscast, or news about that team, and we also, through power of our vote, do not support any politician that supports lesser punishments for these crimes. But that can be a tossup from time to time, because we may agree with other politics that, that politician supports. It is a long fight, but in the end, if you are tenacious in your fight, you will have effected change in your sphere of influence, and that is all you can hope for.
Now, back to a criminal getting out, and being forced to work at a lower wage. While some would see this as them getting their just desserts. I would argue that it would be a failing in the capitalistic nature that has made this country great. So, if he has served his time and received his punishment under the current law, I could not in good conscience support that. It would be akin to saying that if I, a normal person, got out of prison, and got a job cleaning dishes, I would have to earn less than a normal person working the same job. True the dollar amount is different in the two scenarios, but the ethics are the same. By making either he or I work at a lower wage, we would essentially take away from the whole. The impact would be lesser with the dishwasher, but it is the same thing. You are taking away the reward for success. Does he deserve to be successful? That is debatable.

So what do I think will happen to Vicks if he is not allowed to play ball? Well, he will go back to another profession, that probably is not so legal. And in the long and short of it, will be taken out of society yet again. In the end of it, that may be better. But by not allowing him to play, we have expanded the boundaries of the law, and retribution beyond what they should. And if can happen to him, then it can happen to us.

I hope this makes sense to you. It does to me, but sometimes my brain gets to working weird.

---

Same here. I appreciate discussions with Thinkers.

Your post made sense to me. I think that you are right. By using our purchasing and voting powers, we can make our opinions known. This is the power we can exercise in a democracy. And we should put it to good use for this and any causes we feel strongly about. We should also try to enlighten others who do not take seriously enough the issue of pain and suffering inflicted on the innocent and defenseless through violent crimes.

I also agree with you that it would become a vicious cycle if ex-convicts were not allowed to return to the workforce after having served their sentences. As a matter of fact, someone close to me served 4 years in prison for non-violent crimes (multiple burglaries. No weapons,etc.), and was offered a job as a computer tech immediately upon his release. I am sure that had he not been able to find employment, he probably would have resumed to criminal activities. However, it is much more difficult for me to accept that someone who inflicted so much pain and suffering on living beings (just for sport) will now be able to return to multiple-million dollar contracts, etc. It really is very difficult.

However, I understand that the law cannot be involved in what happens to an individual once they have served their time because this would probably change the dynamics of our justice system, and even our goverment. I believe it is partially society's responsibility to determine the success that said individuals ultimately achieve. Which is were boycotts, picketing, voting, etc. come in to play.

I think we now see each other's points pretty clearly (???)