This line from the getactive.peta.org link posted about is ridiculous:
Condemn someone for alleged actions? That seems a bit ridiculous… But it is PETA.
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
This line from the getactive.peta.org link posted about is ridiculous:
The statement calls on people not only to condemn an NFL superstar for his alleged participation in this illegal activity but also to work to end dogfighting in our local communities.
Condemn someone for alleged actions? That seems a bit ridiculous… But it is PETA.[/quote]
Joker,
As a lover of grass fed beef, I cannot agree with you more that PETA can be a little ridiculus.
[quote]BLACKSMITH wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
BLACKSMITH wrote:
Arthur seems like a reasonable owner/businessman and will wait for the outcome of all this, but if it seems like it will hurt his bottom line, I do believe we will have seen the end of Mike Vick in a Falcons uniform. And that may be a good thing.
I’m sure he’d receive a welcome in Baltimore or Cincinnati!
Cinci doesn’t want him. They have a great QB and too many guys getting arrested already.
LOL! True to that statement! Who hasn’t been arrested on the Bengals roster?!
But seriously, Kobe Bryant (rape charge) was forgiven by fans and media and someone mentioned Ray Lewis (2 men murdered), he was also forgiven by fans and media. And dare I say it, even Mike Tyson (too many charges to list) has been forgiven in many circles. We simply must wait for the outcome and go from there. If he’s found innocent, in time, the same would and should happen to Mike Vick.
On a side note…Is it me, or does it seem like because animals are involved, there is more furor to his case? With the Ray Lewis case, again, 2 MEN were stabbed to death, I don’t recall seeing this much venom nationally. The crime he’s charged with is terrible, don’t get me wrong, but are some putting cruel acts to animals above cruel acts to people?
[/quote]
Hey Blacksmith,
I have to agree with your statement that people at large sometimes do seem to get more upset about a dog being killed versus a human. Your logic of that being a little ridiculus (that is what I read into your statement, if I am incorrect, sorry) cannot be argued. However, this issue has nothing to do with logic and is all about emotion.
Let me give you an example. The other week, my girlfriend was on business in Miami and I was alone with the dog. Usually I don’t like to sleep in a big bed alone so I crashed on the couch. I was awoken at 2 a.m. to the sound of my dog crying.
Since she is older now, she can’t really hold it at night so sometimes I have to take her out. Problem is, she wasn’t by the door, she was upstairs, looking up at our bed, crying. I asked the dog what was the matter and everytime she looked at me and then looked up at the unslept in bed and continued to cry.
I lifted up the covers and she jumped up and proceeded so smell every inch of the bed and then looked at me and cried until I crawled in with her and went to sleep.
What I want you understand from that story is that when you bring up what you said, normal people will hear it and say you have a point. However, the average dog lover will hear what you just said, think of one of the thousands of experiences they had just like this one, and will interpret what you said as:
“Wonk, wonk, wonk, wonk, human,mike vick, wonk wonk”.
I hope that you understand this isn’t a crack on you but just an honest answer about how personal experiences cannot only cloud logic but also alter what people hear, think and say.
Thanks,
Mike Cruickshank
MikeShank,
While I understand your point about big dog owners and their dogs having a deeper connection, I disagree with it.
I could go on and on about why, but since I understand your view point and respect your opinion, I just wanted to state mine.
Is this what you were talking about???
[quote]Champr23 wrote:
I saw the actual dogs fighting on television. They kept showing the pitbulls biting the other pitbulls neck and yanking and shaking. Wow. I can’t believe they actually aired that while they were doing the news brief. I mean they played like 1 minute clips like 5 times in the 10 minute briefing. I had to change the channel. I’m not against fighting in general, but it was just too much for me.
Its a pity because I really like Vick as an athlete. Let’s face it the guy is very entertaining. Now, I’m going to have to struggle with liking him now.[/quote]
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
MikeShank,
While I understand your point about big dog owners and their dogs having a deeper connection, I disagree with it.
I could go on and on about why, but since I understand your view point and respect your opinion, I just wanted to state mine.[/quote]
Hi Joker,
No problem. My relationship with my dog is probably unique anyway, big dog or not. Try to think about Ron Burgendy in Anchorman and his dog Baxter:
“I am trapped in a glass case of emotion”. “The bad man killed Baxter”.
I guess in this case I am Ron, Bumper is Baxter, and Mike Vick is Jack Black.
New mike vick poster is now out:
another new poster
[quote]MikeShank wrote:
BLACKSMITH wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
BLACKSMITH wrote:
Hey Blacksmith,
I have to agree with your statement that people at large sometimes do seem to get more upset about a dog being killed versus a human. Your logic of that being a little ridiculus (that is what I read into your statement, if I am incorrect, sorry) cannot be argued. However, this issue has nothing to do with logic and is all about emotion.
Let me give you an example. What I want you understand from that story is that when you bring up what you said, normal people will hear it and say you have a point. However, the average dog lover will hear what you just said, think of one of the thousands of experiences they had just like this one, and will interpret what you said as:
“Wonk, wonk, wonk, wonk, human,mike vick, wonk wonk”.
I hope that you understand this isn’t a crack on you but just an honest answer about how personal experiences cannot only cloud logic but also alter what people hear, think and say.
Thanks,
Mike Cruickshank[/quote]
Hey Mike, you understood correctly, no problem. I will say that you are also correct with the emotional aspect that this case brings forth. My personal experience is that I am not a dog lover or pet owner, so I guess I will never understand that type of feeling.
My friends that are pet owners care for their animals deeply but also recognize that their animals have their place. I know that if anything were to happen to their pets, they would be saddened, of course.
But in this particular case, I just think folks have to let some of that emotion go and let this guy have his day in court. He’s already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion and we have not heard all of the facts or seen all of the evidence. I have my own opinions and speculation, believe me. But in harmony with due process, I’ll wait and see what the outcome of this trial is and base my full reaction on that.
Will I spend money this season on the Falcons games…Or support whatever product Arthur Blank puts on the field this or next season (with or without Mike)? I honestly cannot answer that right now.
Felicia
Why would anyone punish the Falcons for the actions of one of their players?
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
Why would anyone punish the Falcons for the actions of one of their players?[/quote]
This is a good question, but perhaps those season ticket holders who have sent their tickets back(or threatened to) may be better equipped to answer that question.
Or the folks planning on picketing/protesting their training camp next week? Why pressure Arthur to fire Mike? Why punish the Falcons, indeed, when there’s been no legal judgement handed down yet?
All I’m saying is let’s wait, see what comes out of this trial, and go from there. Some folks may not want to support the Falcons if Mike is NOT there, the same way some will not support the team if he IS there. Not saying this is me, just that the opininons here in Atlanta cover the full spectrum.
My last thought above was not in retaliation or as a punishment to the Falcons. I’m just saying, as a consumer and sports fan, after all is said and done, if I don’t like the ‘product’ on the field, do I know if I will continue to spend money on that product? I just don’t know yet. Before this season, the team still needed some help in certain positions and I just wasn’t sure if those needs have been met yet.
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
Why would anyone punish the Falcons for the actions of one of their players?[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by “punish,” but if you mean not support, buy products, or go to games, I see every reason for people to act that way.
As a sports fan, you expect the owner to build a competitive team. When the owner thoroughly backs what many fans see as a very average quarterback – dynamic at times, but still very average, you hope that it will pay off and that player will perform. Now, in a situation like this, even if Vick plays every game this season, he becomes a distraction. Games, practices, and news conferences become a circus. The team becomes divided. (Hell, half the NFL is already speaking out against Vick.)
Now, Arthur Blank has to make a decision. And it’s not an easy one. He will get criticized no matter what he does. (Unless he suspends Vick and Joey Harrington somehow leads the Falcons to the playoffs.)
My point is, as a sports fan, you have every right to express your dissatisfaction with the product put on a field. Of course, you may have meant something different by “punish.”
HUGE UPDATE!!!
THE NFL COMMISIONER HAS JUST ORDERED MIKE VICK TO NOT REPORT TO TRAINING CAMP!
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-vick-leave&prov=ap&type=lgns
“While it is for the criminal justice system to determine your guilt or innocence, it is my responsibility as commissioner of the National Football League to determine whether your conduct, even if not criminal, nonetheless violated league policies, including the Personal Conduct Policy,” Goodell said in a letter to the quarterback.
My response was in regards to Blacksmith’s comment, but not directed solely that way.
I should have phrased it better…
If you are a fan of the Falcon’s, why would the alleged off field actions of Vick lead you to stop supporting your team?
With the casual sports fan I can see it. With Michael Vick fans I can see it. But with a Falcon’s fan it just doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.
Now, if the management or ownership does something that you don’t like and I can see why you would stop supporting the club, but not for the alleged off field actions of a single player.
Again, I understand better now what Blacksmith was saying and my statement would be better directed at a lot of people i’ve seen in the in the media responding to the situation.
A couple things:
First, I’m glad Goodell made the decision and didn’t leave it to the ownership. Hopefully this will bring the heat on him and prevent a backlash from Atlanta natives and Falcon fans.
It’s too bad he’s getting paid, although I do understand why.
I feel bad for those players… I know what it’s like to have to sit through ridiculous “educational” classes because someone messes up. It’s horrible and a waste of time. It’s nothing but sugar coating a butt kissing to make people think you’re really trying to do something to prevent this from ever happening again.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2946573
Vick is starting to assemble his own “Dream Team”.
Yeah, he retained Martin before Goodell came down with his decision this afternoon.
Haha, I love seeing where people come from on certain issues. Mike, thanks for the info about your view and on the case.
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
Now, if the management or ownership does something that you don’t like and I can see why you would stop supporting the club, but not for the alleged off field actions of a single player.
[/quote]
I think in some ways ownership has done something that many Falcons fans don’t like. They put their team in the hands of a mediocre quarterback who has made some poor decisions as of late. They also got rid of their top back up quarterback, which no puts them in position to start they season with a second tier qb who has already failed to perform in two cities.
If he actually killed dogs himself, I’d ban him from the NFL. No big loss from a fan standpoint. We forgot about Ricky Williams just fine, and Vince Young is already turning into everything Vick was SUPPOSED to be anyway.
The thing I find ironic is that Atlanta held on to Matt Shaub for a really long time because they wanted him as insurance…and now that they finally let him go on to greener pastures, they actually NEED him. Funny stuff.