llafnwod said:
That is an argument, and it did come across in your previous posts. Again, my main problem was with saying "if PETA's against it, it must be fine" which is what was coming across in your (and many others') later posts. This is separate. I think the problem with this argument is that dog fighting isn't really the sort of thing you can be sorry for without a major change in character. It's not like he assaulted someone or said something he shouldn't have; a continuing crime like that shows a nature of violence, sadism, and a general contempt for life. The only reason he's "sorry" is that he was caught. That's the problem people have with putting him on the cover; regardless of how good a football player he is, for some given value of evil people shouldn't be celebrated or made role models.
If I somehow implied that I thought "if PETA's against it, it must be fine", I really screwed up. What I basically was trying to say was that I think PETA are just as bad as Michael Vick, even worse actually. Yes, Vick saying that he's sorry AFTER he got caught seems unsincere (spelling?), but at least he had the good common sense to do that. PETA continue to assault and harass people and NEVER apologises for the shit they do, they just hide behind "the ends justifies the means". "The ends justifies the means" is a cowards way of saying "I know it's wrong but I did it anyway and I don't wanna face the consequences".
However, that's not the point. The point is people should pay for their crimes. Vick did his time and as a part of his punishment he's donating a part of his salary to charity in order to prevent dogfighting. Most people should be able to be forgiven for their crimes. Of course there are people that don't deserve to be forgiven, like Joseph Fritzl, but I believe that Vick should be able to be forgiven.