|
Post by dantesvirgil on May 22, 2009 10:13:38 GMT -5
Well, I think I agree with nick that he's paid his debt to society and that he needs to keep working somehow; it's incredibly hard for ex-cons to get work, at least those without "star" status like Vick, even if they have supposedly paid their debt.
I think I'm not sure why everyone thinks he shouldn't work in the NFL anymore. Is it about the amount of money or the prestige that kind of job gives? Are you saying he doesn't deserve it? One the one hand I don't think he deserves it either. But on the other hand, I don't know if it's right to basically keep punitively damaging someone after they've already paid for what they've done. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on May 22, 2009 16:48:26 GMT -5
It would be fitting if the only job he could find was working in an dog shelter or something. Having to clean up after animals he's been convicted of abusing would be ironic justice indeed.
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on May 22, 2009 23:13:15 GMT -5
I would prefer that Vick not be allowed to play in the NFL again. He blew his chance and the trust of his team when he ran that dog ring.
That said, I can see it happening. There will always be demand for talent, and I have no doubt that some team or another will want a QB. At least I know the Steelers will have no part of that deal. If PacMan Jones can still be in the NFL, or that druggie Williams from the Dolphins a few years back, then it isn't a stretch to think that Vick will play again.
I hope it doesn't come to that.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on May 22, 2009 23:42:56 GMT -5
Well, I think I agree with nick that he's paid his debt to society and that he needs to keep working somehow; it's incredibly hard for ex-cons to get work, at least those without "star" status like Vick, even if they have supposedly paid their debt. I think I'm not sure why everyone thinks he shouldn't work in the NFL anymore. Is it about the amount of money or the prestige that kind of job gives? Are you saying he doesn't deserve it? One the one hand I don't think he deserves it either. But on the other hand, I don't know if it's right to basically keep punitively damaging someone after they've already paid for what they've done. Does that make sense? Well, I don't think he deserves a second chance at the NFL. Vick is a sadist who tortured animals to death for sport. He served 23 months for his crimes (I believe it was 23 months). The man isn't fit to be a panhandler, let alone get a second chance at pro football. I cannot stand people who are cruel to animals, and I think our society is far too lenient on crimes like that, not to mention that our society is far too lenient on celebrities who commit crimes as well.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 23, 2009 0:00:45 GMT -5
Well, I think I agree with nick that he's paid his debt to society and that he needs to keep working somehow; it's incredibly hard for ex-cons to get work, at least those without "star" status like Vick, even if they have supposedly paid their debt. I think I'm not sure why everyone thinks he shouldn't work in the NFL anymore. Is it about the amount of money or the prestige that kind of job gives? Are you saying he doesn't deserve it? One the one hand I don't think he deserves it either. But on the other hand, I don't know if it's right to basically keep punitively damaging someone after they've already paid for what they've done. Does that make sense? You know what, this convinced me. If he was an accountant, would he lose his accreditation? Although I still think he should be banned from ever being around animals. It is his profession.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on May 23, 2009 11:11:57 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with AC that he should probably be banned from owning animals in the same way ex-cons can't own guns after they get out of prison (because they're likely to reoffend with them.
I just don't see what makes the NFL different from AC's example of being an accountant -- I think that's a great example. The man has to work. Why should we get to say as a society what he does for work, as long as it doesn't harm society (and I include animal welfare in that)? Aren't we just being punitive and punishing beyond the given punishment for the crime?
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on May 23, 2009 11:48:14 GMT -5
I just don't see what makes the NFL different from AC's example of being an accountant -- I think that's a great example. The man has to work. Why should we get to say as a society what he does for work, as long as it doesn't harm society (and I include animal welfare in that)? Aren't we just being punitive and punishing beyond the given punishment for the crime? Last time I checked, kids don't ask for the autographs of accountants or wear replica business suits. (For full disclosure, I will admit I had a Virginia Tech Vick jersey which I wore until the printing was falling off.) He is a very good football player. He is also an asshat. Putting him back on the field shows kids that it's OK to flip off fans and abuse animals, because you can still get a multi-million dollar contract to play a game.
|
|
|
Post by Green-Eyed Lilo on May 23, 2009 13:24:16 GMT -5
If he does get to playing football again, I'm hoping against hope that one of the opposing teams will have, like, "Dog Lovers' Night" featuring bacon-scented Michael Vick chew toys or something.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on May 24, 2009 15:39:58 GMT -5
I just don't see what makes the NFL different from AC's example of being an accountant -- I think that's a great example. The man has to work. Why should we get to say as a society what he does for work, as long as it doesn't harm society (and I include animal welfare in that)? Aren't we just being punitive and punishing beyond the given punishment for the crime? Last time I checked, kids don't ask for the autographs of accountants or wear replica business suits. (For full disclosure, I will admit I had a Virginia Tech Vick jersey which I wore until the printing was falling off.) He is a very good football player. He is also an asshat. Putting him back on the field shows kids that it's OK to flip off fans and abuse animals, because you can still get a multi-million dollar contract to play a game. So it's because he's supposed to be a "role model" based on his star status, right? I'm not sure I really buy that as an excuse to keep him out of the NFL. It smacks of "think of the children" emotiveness. Again, we're back to punitive damages. The man did his time -- tacking on a ban from pro football because he might be a bad example for kids seems like something unrelated to what he actually did. For one thing, I don't think most kids would be likely to approve of what he did and I don't think they would be influenced by it, certainly not in the same way as they would have if he had gotten busted for steriods. I'm not fan of Vick. But this seems like a case of selective judgment here. There are *lots* of NFL players and college players who make really poor decisions. The decision as to whether they're allowed to play or not is based on whether they would be too much of a distraction to the team/sport and whether or not they still have enough talent to keep going. It's not really based on whether they would be a poor role model to kids, so much as it's based on whether the corporate sponsors, etc. want their brand name tied up with his shenanigans. I really don't like the idea of continuing to punish and damage someone beyond the initial sentencing. I sure don't like the concept of lifetime bans on anything. I can see it maybe in selective cases. But it seems like a decision born of emotional reaction, not really one that would be beneficial to society in any way.
|
|