The Big Picture: Maddening

[Serioli]

My bit

That is a straw-man argument again. Again you are saying both are bad and ignoring the distinction between the two bad options.

And yes, I get it that you would do neither and neither should anybody do either, but that is not what has happened here.

The issue is Vick is being vilified as committing some unprecedented evil, when the world is not so black and white (though to SOME they sure do seem to see the world in Black or White).

Just take a step back and think, if a white sportsman had been partaking in an illegal sport practised predominantly by white people, like say illegally trapping animals on his estate. Would there be the same outrage? I don't think there would.

Would all the commentators put up pictures of Bambi and label this white man with torture and murder? it's cruel and callous but not torture, not murder.

I agree with bob in-so-much as we should have a line of decency, where once you cross that there are unavoidable consequences. But it is wrong to say EVERYTHING beyond that line is as bad as each other, it trivialises the more serious crimes and ultimately deceives.

Ah, I apologise because I didn't/don't see the distinction between the two. Not sure if it means I see the world in black and white or because I don't notice black and white but his race didn't even factor in for me.

If a white sportsman had committed the same (dog-fighting) or a similar act (killing bambi) I can assure you he would get the same response from me (i.e. don't do it because it is unnecessary). I have no idea what other commentators would do and I have no idea if their actions would be founded on skin colour as I am not them.

I approached it simply from the perspective of dog-fighting, if it is in fact a skin colour issue then that is something else entirely, again I can't comment as I simply don't get racism.

EDIT: Just re-read your original quote again and I think you have mis-interpreted that I am equalising two very different acts. I used the A,B & C example as it was an extension of the one used in the post of the person I quoted. I am not trying to state that someone who kills a dog should be put in the same bracket as a guy who goes around punching people for a laugh or one who rapes children (different bracket agin) etc.

 

[badmunky64]

yes Vick deserved to go to jail and whatnot but the man has done his time. beyond that, i don't care if his face is gonna be on the next Madden. I've never bought the games and if other want to waste their money on it than go for it.

 

[Seamus8]

I can't tell what's worse, the Vick haters that have way too much respect for animals, or the counterarguement that clearly places equally exaggerated worth on human life.

Both animals are overpopulated introduced species.

If you happen to be carrying a firearm and find a human with a knife locked in combat with the bengal tiger, what would you shoot?

I would hope most people would shoot the human, as the tiger is more rare and valuable.

Now of course selfishness is to be expected and even fully permitted, such that if it was a friend or loved one in a struggle with a tiger (or someone that owed you money) killing the tiger would be justified. That's just relativism at work. There is no valid arguement, however, that humans hold more intrinsic worth than any other species. Unrelated humans are more often a competitor for food an resources than any kind of aid to their fellow humans. Would I kill my own property (dog) if it would have stopped the Rawanda Genocide, the Holocaust, or worldwide starvation? Of course not.

As an example, the car arguement; is there any reason that I should stop a car or swerve when hitting a child over a dog? Legal reasons aside, if I'm the type person who would stop and help a child I should equally stop and help a dog. If I'm the type of person who would just keep on rolling after hitting a dog then I should have no moral qualms about doing the same thing to a mancub.

 

[feeqmatic]

[This statement is party the essence of why some "support" Vick. He is being unfairly attacked not for the crime of dogfighting, but moresoe the crime of being an overpaid young black athlete.

Even in bob's post there is more criticism of the sport and the culture that supports it (ie jock culture who had to reaaaaly hurt bob for all of the veiled and direct attacks he makes on them) than it is about dogfighting.

I dont think Bob is a racist, but most people arent OVERTLY racist. Things just come out based on cultural norms and familiarity. More than anything i think bob is biased against jock culture which deserves no bigger of a beatdown than nerd culture half the time, but Bob doesnt see it this way.

All althletes are highly overpaied for what they do, regardless what color they happen to be

My point is that if a person is mad about the nature of how athletes get paid then fine let that present itself as the issue. In this case people are crying for Vicks head and using his crime as an excuse, but really they mostly are angry at the fact that he is a rich athlete who has gotten into trouble and is getting a second chance at being a rich athlete. People are shitty sometimes and will wish ill will on one another for jealous reasons. The courts punished Vick for his crimes, but now people like bob are trying to punish him for being who he is and are using his crime as a scapegoat

 

[beema]

Here here bob!
Completely agree with your stance. It makes me happy that you are so passionate about this. Too many people seem to discount it because it was "just dogs." Vick is a sick, disturbed creep, and no less so than someone who tortures and kills people (that is, after all, the next logical step in that progression). I think he should be denied any possible fame or recognition of any sort for his behavior and shunned by society.

 

[mega48man]

all right bob, this episode had a valid point about animal abuse, but i'm beginning to see you cross the line in some places. i also agree that micheal vick shouldn't be on the front cover, but every year is a new installment because yes, there is a giant roster update and then there are also refinements in the game's mechanics, graphics, and style.

it stimulates the economy because people spend 50$ every year which helps cycle the money, graphics always look nicer even if just by a little bit, gameplay mechanics have taken some changes from what i have seen (one installment made it extremely easy for beginners to learn how to play the game and football in general, which i think is a great way to get kids like me off our asses), and finally, i love to see the cover art on all of the EA sports boxes. as a graphic design artist, i love to see what techniques and style they use.

last year, i loved the FIFA '10 box cover, looked fantastic, and i can't wait to see what '12 is gonna look like. not only that, it's impossible for someone like a career path like mine to get in to a job in art, so thank GOD yearly installments give an opportunity for graphic design artists like me soon to be.

i'm jake eagle
and THAT's the big picture
(because i actually focused on a wide range of topics with their own supporting arguements instead of ripping on a guy with a better job than me, thus making it a big picture)

 

[Exo-Mike]

I'm from England so I dont really get the NFL series but I have a dog and in that respect I don't disagree with a thing that was said in this video.

I'm glad that there are other people out there who feel the same way I do about animal cruelty (bucket of acid and a slow decent as punishment!)

 

[370999]

I can't tell what's worse, the Vick haters that have way too much respect for animals, or the counterarguement that clearly places equally exaggerated worth on human life.

Both animals are overpopulated introduced species.

If you happen to be carrying a firearm and find a human with a knife locked in combat with the bengal tiger, what would you shoot?

I would hope most people would shoot the human, as the tiger is more rare and valuable.

Now of course selfishness is to be expected and even fully permitted, such that if it was a friend or loved one in a struggle with a tiger (or someone that owed you money) killing the tiger would be justified. That's just relativism at work. There is no valid arguement, however, that humans hold more intrinsic worth than any other species. Unrelated humans are more often a competitor for food an resources than any kind of aid to their fellow humans. Would I kill my own property (dog) if it would have stopped the Rawanda Genocide, the Holocaust, or worldwide starvation? Of course not.

I do hope you are joking. The concept of rarity and value are human concept. Until we meet another sentient species we are pretty much the bee's knees. I would gladly shoot my dog to avoid the rwandan gencoide, it's a dog.

Does anyone else feel that people have taken the whole "the only worse thing would be the holocaust" as being a joke on Bob's behalf. At least I hope so.

I'm Irish so I am wholly ignorant on this issue but surely if the lad does something illegal (which most people have no doubt this should be) he should go to jail. Which he did. And to get on the EA thingy all you have to do is to get the most votes. Which he might. I don't see the issue here, they aren't voting for him as a moral person but as a sportsman. He could be a klansman but as long as he played good weird american football and people voted for him then he gets the box.

 

[Dr Jones]

Mike Vick can do whatever he wants to dogs under his charge and care.

Oh, hey yeah. That totally justifies the toture and stuff.. /sarcasm

 

[Dr Jones]

If you happen to be carrying a firearm and find a human with a knife locked in combat with the bengal tiger, what would you shoot?

I would hope most people would shoot the human, as the tiger is more rare and valuable.

Yeah, except for that that comparison is off the charts unrelated.. It just doesen't make sense, you pass this off as being a test if you're either pro Vick or aginst (y'know PETA/other), even though it makes no sense at all. I mean.. Just.. Really?

 

[Dr Jones]

I quote: "It's just a dog."

There are worse things you can do. Bob is overreacting like a whiny schizz.

It's not that it was a dog or not, that can be relatively ignored. The point is the ************ beat them to death and tortured them. For fun. I think that in a case like that the "It's just an animal, dude" doesen't really hold up. Behaviour like that to any living being truly shows that the person commiting it is mentally unstable. (unless done for neccessary reasons.)

 

[feeqmatic]

Wow, i think you backfired bob...

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/116/1162413p1.html

this will not end well for EA, but they get what they deserve for being idiots. Im almost tempted to vote for vick, maybe it will help me get NFL 2K back.

 

[feeqmatic]

I quote: "It's just a dog."

There are worse things you can do. Bob is overreacting like a whiny schizz.

It's not that it was a dog or not, that can be relatively ignored. The point is the ************ beat them to death and tortured them. For fun. I think that in a case like that the "It's just an animal, dude" doesen't really hold up. Behaviour like that to any living being truly shows that the person commiting it is mentally unstable. (unless done for neccessary reasons.)

After hearing this point made several times, i want to point out that Vicks main role was as a financier of the group. I believe he admitting to participating in killing dogs who were hurt etc, but his main thing was the money man, in fact he didnt even make any real money off of it, he was just trying to help his lowlife friends out.

To hear you guys it sounds like he was Jack the ripper. Not saying that either situation is good, but there is a grey area that a lot of people are refusing to acknowledge.

 

[Dr Jones]

I quote: "It's just a dog."

There are worse things you can do. Bob is overreacting like a whiny schizz.

It's not that it was a dog or not, that can be relatively ignored. The point is the ************ beat them to death and tortured them. For fun. I think that in a case like that the "It's just an animal, dude" doesen't really hold up. Behaviour like that to any living being truly shows that the person commiting it is mentally unstable. (unless done for neccessary reasons.)

After hearing this point made several times, i want to point out that Vicks main role was as a financier of the group. I believe he admitting to participating in killing dogs who were hurt etc, but his main thing was the money man, in fact he didnt even make any real money off of it, he was just trying to help his lowlife friends out.

To hear you guys it sounds like he was Jack the ripper. Not saying that either situation is good, but there is a grey area that a lot of people are refusing to acknowledge.

Well damn, him just helping his friends out really makes it alot better. /sarcasm.

But srlsy i do get your point, but just claiming him to be the money man still is a terrible accusation. That's like being the head of a mob, you ordered the hit, but never did them yourself, doesen't really make it less horrible, does it?

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

I don't agree with what Vick did but hey, if people want to see him on the cover of a game then why shouldn't they? That stuff's in the past and refusing to put a guy on the cover of a video game isn't going to change anything. What, are dogs going to walk into a game store and get offended? I'm not saying that we should put this guy on the cover, I'm just saying that I don't really care if they do - particularly if it's because he's playing well.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

i dont know why people pay $60 for something they could easily do in their back yards with friends. i cant cast rewind time and thats why i play video games

 

[leviticusd]

It's actually the perfect storm that is getting him on the cover.

1. You have those that really like him and want him on the cover voting for him.
2. You have those that hate him and want him to break his leg like "The Curse" did to him in '04(?) when he was on the cover.
3. You have those that hate EA Sports/Madden that want him to win and it to be a PR nightmare that will somehow end the exclusive contract between EA and the NFL.

This contest was over before it started! lol

Personally I just don't think anybody should be on the cover twice. There's enough other good players to pass the honor around.