The Big Picture: Maddening

warfjm

New member
Nov 14, 2007
164
0
0
I'm confused. Why would they even consider him for the cover if he was already on one? Let some other guy get it that is deserving. A new Madden only comes out once a year. It should go to player of the year or something like that.
 

Fiz_The_Toaster

books, Books, BOOKS
Legacy
Apr 8, 2020
5,498
1
3
Country
United States
boeingguy787 said:
Seriously, guys? NOBODY believes in second chances? I thought that the justice system was designed to rehabilitate people, and Vick seems to be rehabilitated (unlike countless others who have not changed their ways).
I thought the same thing, but apparently you and I thought wrong.

OT: All I'm gonna say is he did his time, and he's trying to be a better person, if that's not good enough for you, then I think we have nothing to discuss.

If anything I'm voting for Aaron Rogers, why? Because, as a Vikings fan, I want him to get the Madden curse and have a very shitty season. I hate that guy.
 

Joos

Golden pantaloon.
Dec 19, 2007
662
0
0
MovieBob said:
Maddening

MovieBob wonders why people keep buying Madden, and why anyone would want Michael Vick on the cover.

Watch Video
TBH, animals aren't murdered. They are killed or put down. Using the murder word makes your argument seem less valid; NOT stronger. Which is sad, since I think you are correct.
 

Leftnt Sharpe

Nick Furry
Apr 2, 2009
560
0
0
Were the dogs actually pit fighting type dogs because that makes a hell of a lot of difference. I personally think its cruel to keep dogs for any purpose that they were not bred for and that dogs specifically bred for fighting should not be kept as pets, it is cruel and dangerous. If a breed is no longer being used for the purpose it was created for it should be gradually phased out.
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
AnubisAuman said:
Denying him the chance to compete for Madden's cover is punishment.
Withholding a reward is not punishment, unless you're being a behaviorism purist. Even then, it's sketchy at best.

In the standard definition, punishment is the imposition of an undesirable circumstances as reprisal or retribution. Alternately, it's the taking away of something someone already had in order to punish them. (Negative and positive punishment)

In either case, the imposition or removal of a stimulus is with the intent to alter the subject's behavior. In this case, it's merely as a response to it. Because he has done these things in the past, he is not fit to be the public face of this game. There are far better candidates.

It's no more a "punishment" than a school refusing to hire a janitor who once served jail time for rape. Yeah, he served his time, but the school is under no obligation to take this chance when there are other qualified applicants.
 

MonkeyPunch

New member
Feb 20, 2008
589
0
0
Shirokurou said:
Also, Bob I know of countries where literal cock-fights are legal, snake-fights are legal.. i guess all those people are OK, cause it's not puppies or we dealing with countries of lowest-grade scum?
Any of those involved in these cock-fights and snake-fights poised to be on the cover of Madden or any other publication setting them up as role models?
Or maybe you didn't make it through all the way to 4:03 on the video before writing that comment?
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Quak0r said:
Dastardly said:
Forgiving someone, or believing they have redeemed themselves, does not mean forestalling the logical consequences of those actions. It is not wrong, unforgiving, or uncharitable to vehemently want to deny Vick this spot. He paid his legal debt to society, and that's fine. It means he cannot be punished again, but refusing to honor something is not the same as punishment.
While I agree with your reasoning on the whole I must nitpick about your last statement. Punishment is adding something negative or removing something positive. So refusing to honor something is punishment, not punishment by law in this case but still punishment.
Close. As mentioned in my above response (sorry, didn't see yours yet), the punishment is removing something positive for the purpose of changing the behavior. This move wouldn't be "to show him how bad a person he is." This move would be "because there are other qualified candidates that do not have this very public past."

The individual might perceive the situation as punishment in his own mind, but that doesn't make the action itself punishment.
 

Zydrate

New member
Apr 1, 2009
1,914
0
0
Pyode said:
Dog fighting is NOT the same as hunting deer. Not even remotely close.
What if I captured two deer, had them fight, and then cooked them for dinner and otherwise used them as various resources.
Would that count?

See how the line gets really blurry?

This is theoretical of course. I'm no hunter. I can barely catch a damn cat in my apartment when I want to.
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
Don't care. It's not that I don't love dogs (I like dogs, not love), or that I consume the flesh of murdered animals every day (tasty!), or that I feel prison is probably pretty bad for rich people, too. It's that I don't play Madden. I've never owned a Madden game. I'm never going to own a Madden game. They could put O.J. Simpson on the cover and I couldn't give a tenth of a shit. It's a bland game made by a bland company to simulate what I feel to be a bland sport. I can't get any more outraged then not spending the money. I can't do anything more to hurt them or Michael Vick, other than not watch football and not buy football games, something of which I'm already doing in spades. I also talk down football at every opportunity.

I see no reason for anyone to get upset at the business decisions of a company that you don't patronize in the first place. Why? Because you can't do anything other than not give them your money. So if you're a football fan, who does buy madden games, and you don't like dog torture, then maybe MAYBE you might want to consider not buying this.

I just don't agree with the general sentiment here. Kind of cynical and kind of hateful. It assumes A. People are dumb and hopeless unaware beings who don't watch the news and don't consider purchasing decisions. B. that it is our duty (people who don't play football games) to make an effort to control their spending decisions before they even get the chance to make them. C. That a marketing campaign somehow legitimizes dog torture in the eyes of the public. Sorry. People may be dumb, but they aren't that dumb. No one has shot their wife because Charlie Sheen is on tour. I haven't ordered a $5000 hooker because Eliot Spitzer has a TV show. And I haven't murdered a dog because Michael Vick is in the NFL. No dogs are coming back to life that he killed. No dogs will be spared if he gets the cover.
 

Luthir Fontaine

New member
Oct 16, 2010
323
0
0
I was about to writer some reason why he needs to be forgiven and he served his time etc....
Then my puppy jumped in my lap so yeah...fuck this guy
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
capacollo said:
Well said (MoiveBob and yourself). Although I agree with him in this case, in general whether I do or don't his arguments are well thought out and try to be as logical as possible where it warrants it. Were you by chance ever part of a debate club?
Nah, never was, but I've always been surrounded by very diverse groups of friends with wildly differing opinions, so we got a lot of practice trying to be reasonable and understand opposing points of view... similar skill set, I guess. Thanks anyhow!
 

roostuf

New member
Dec 29, 2009
724
0
0
people who deliberately train and gain profit from the cruelty of less beings(animals) should shot.
 

Luthir Fontaine

New member
Oct 16, 2010
323
0
0
AvauntVanguard said:
Pyode said:
Dog fighting is NOT the same as hunting deer. Not even remotely close.
What if I captured two deer, had them fight, and then cooked them for dinner and otherwise used them as various resources.
Would that count?

See how the line gets really blurry?

This is theoretical of course. I'm no hunter. I can barely catch a damn cat in my apartment when I want to.
Yeah thats pretty wrong. Im not against killing an animal but I do with it with as little pain as possible anything less is barbaric...
 

DanDeFool

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,891
0
0
Jas0913 said:
Funny that you mention this, i've been preaching to people and friends about how big of a monster Michael Vick is for years. My old man listens to howard stern a ton and he's always bringing up the topic of how the NFL is stupid for allowing the idiot back into the league.
I wouldn't say the NFL is stupid. Just very, very amoral.

Remember, the NFL is a business, and a lot of football fans are the type of people who don't see anything wrong with what Michael Vick did. The NFL isn't going to sack one of their top athletes unless it's going to hurt ticket sales and advertising dollars.

Maybe I'm too distant from football fandom to really tell whether Michael Vick's reinstatement has had that affect or not, but from an outside view it doesn't seem to me like it would. I'm sure some NFL fans will express their discontent by turning the TV off on Monday nights, but I imagine that number is pretty small. Maybe more people just won't watch Eagles games...

P.S.: I don't get professional sports games in general. It seems like it would be more fun (and more rewarding) to join a local club and play said sport in real life. I guess there are all sorts of reasons why you might not be able to do that, but in that case I don't see why playing a pro-sports game would be more enjoyable than anything else you could buy with that money.

Maybe it's just so they can look like less of a nerd. I may never know...
 

Sikratua

New member
Apr 11, 2011
183
0
0
The nation forgave Ted Kennedy. The nation forgave Snoop Dogg. The nation forgave Ray Lewis. The nation forgave Dog Chapman. The nation forgave John Holmes. What do those people have in common? They all killed PEOPLE! (Allegedly)

The nation forgave Michael Jackson. The nation forgave 50 Cent. The nation forgave Biggie Smalls. The nation forgave R. Kelly. The nation forgave James Brown. The nation forgave that guy who threw a brick into Reginald Denny's head.

Do I need to continue this list? You actually put up that "dogs can't reason" as a reason to treat dogs as being more deserving of life than human beings. As people, we see a dead dog, and we bury it, with respect. A dog sees a dead human, and, once hunger sets in, that dead human is lunch.

Now, you want to hear something really fucked up? What Michael Vick, allegedly, did to those dogs, yeah, that stuff is done to EVERY SINGLE COW that is butchered in the world. So, where's the line? We only care about the cute animals?
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
AvauntVanguard said:
What if I captured two deer, had them fight, and then cooked them for dinner and otherwise used them as various resources.
Would that count?

See how the line gets really blurry?

This is theoretical of course. I'm no hunter. I can barely catch a damn cat in my apartment when I want to.
It's not all that blurry. The line isn't as much in the action as it is the intent.

In sport hunting, the idea is to make the kill quick. "You wound it, you track it, you kill it." That mantra isn't telling people to wound, though. It's telling them if they miss the kill shot and the deer is wounded, the hunter has an obligation to track the suffering animal and finish it off rather than just let it die slowly.

If you're deliberately trying to inflict fear and pain, for the purposes of fear and pain alone, that's not even remotely the same. Hunters stay hidden, so it's not about fear. They try to make the kill instantaneous, so it's not about pain. It is of course possible that a sociopath torture freak might "go hunting" to cause fear and pain, but the intent is very different.

(Now if someone is killing specifically to eat, that's utilitarian in nature. Animals are made of meat, meat is food, and that's the food chain. No problem there.)

Killing an animal for food or sport, during which the animal may feel pain or panic.
Torturing an animal for personal amusement, during with the animal might die.
The difference is in which is the clear intent.

In Vick's case, this wasn't for food. It wasn't made quick or clean. These animals were tortured, raised abusively to make them violent, and the goal of these fights (for either "side") is not to have the animal die. Not even in the same ballpark here.
 

C_Topher

New member
May 17, 2009
125
0
0
Velocirapture07 said:
Bob I almost always disagree with you, and this time is no difference. Vick fucked up and did some horrible shit. He served time in prison and did not kill human beings. Also, on the sliding scale of humanity, I'd rate a lot of athletes higher than you. You put together a bunch of random pictures and talk over them with your opinion.

Whoopdy fucking do.

I'm pretty sure there's been other ex-criminals on the front of madden games. They also probably committed crimes against human beings which will always be more damning than anything done to animals. I like animals, but in this case you're completely wrong. I truly feel like he's trying to come back from the mistakes he made. Hell, maybe that is impossible, but at least he's trying.

I'm sure you've never done anything wrong though Bob, nothing you've ever regretted. You're just another freaking mouth piece on the internet no different than any other except for the fact that you get paid to spout to other people your opinion on things. Why don't you pay attention to yourself and your own shortcomings instead of focusing on someone who made animals fight each other. I also like how no one gives a fuck if you have a snake fight or something like that, but when it's fluffy cute shit everyone flips. He wasn't stuffing poodles and lolcats into arenas and torturing them (these were dogs trained and conditioned to be violent ANIMALS)

All in all, you're dead wrong. Animals will never be on the same level as humans, no matter how cuddly wuddly they are (and believe me I do love animals-I own a cat). Vick didn't murder a human child, he didn't violently rape anyone, he didn't assualt a grandmother, he didn't slaughter babies, etc. Get your priorities straight. It's time to move the fuck on and get over it. This series pisses me off to no end as well. How the hell do you actually get paid to spew your opinion and spout it off like fact?!
Judging by your own admission that you usually watch Bob's segments, I can only guess this is meant to be seen as an obvious troll. Really, if you have so much hate for Bob, why watch him? Also, there are a lot of people that get paid to give their opinions; opinion columnist for most newspapers, critics of all kinds, and let's not forget the consultants (financial, business, expert witnesses...) and so on.

Also, if think forcing animals to fight to the death for our amusement is ACCEPTABLE, then you, my good sir, are in need of professional psychiatric help. Do you have any idea how dogfighting works? The dogs are trained to kill by being beaten, starved, and given other animals to kill, usually stolen pets referred to as bait animals. So yes, Vick was "stuffing poodles and lolcats into arenas and torturing them". Are you saying it would be fine if someone took YOUR cat and tossed it between two starved and vicious dogs? I'll give you a hint: Say "no" and you're a hypocrite, say "yes" and you're as sick a fuck as Vick.

Another thing, as I mentioned in an earlier post, torturing and killing animals is a good predictor of violence against humans. It's usually a stepping stone for much worse, often carriers as serial killers (see Jeffrey Dalmer and Denis Raider [BTK]). It's not that it was "just animals", it's that it was a red flag for a psychopath.

And as for the shit about animals not being on the same level as humans, wasn't the same thing said about women, blacks, Jews, Native Americans, and various other groups throughout history? Newsflash, PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS TOO! We're not on a higher level than any other animals. Even if you chose to ignore that, Vick chose to commit horrendous acts upon something that was helpless and dependant on him for its survival, not unlike a human infant. He's a monster that was caught before he could do more damage, and you're just as bad for defending him.
 

JUMBO PALACE

Elite Member
Legacy
Jun 22, 2020
3,552
7
43
Country
USA
I couldn't care less who's on the next Madden cover. And it's not like this is Vick's second shot at fame. the guy is already back in the NFL making millions. What does it matter if his face is on the cover of a game everybody forgets about in a couple weeks anyway?
 

Spacewolf

New member
May 21, 2008
1,232
0
0
seems bob gives more of a damn about dog fighters than he would for random murders. Also strange he gives such a damn about dogs vs other animal abuse scandles unless his next picture is about turkeys at bernard matthews