Bob you are right! Vick is a sorry Son of a ***** and that is an insult to sorry sons of bitches!! He is a scumbag pure and simple!
It's a circle of sticks.Onyxious said:I would hardly call a bird's nest not a building.
And the cat thing was kind of a joke, so on a serious note:
a fine argument sir, very compelling and i respect the fact that this is in your own opinion, but as you said no one will agree on everything. and for your comment i must disagree, he earned a profit from the suffering of other living beings. i applaud your comment and it makes sense to me but i cant agree.HeartAttackBob said:Susan Arendt said:He was a millionaire who got his jollies torturing and killing innocent animals. He can die in a damn fire.While I agree that torturing and killing dogs for entertainment is repugnant and ethically wrong, I have to respectfully disagree with the condemnation of Vick.roostuf said:people who deliberately train and gain profit from the cruelty of less beings(animals) should shot.
Nature is far more creatively cruel than Michael Vick could ever hope to be. There are many examples, but the first that comes to mind are wasps that implant their parasitic larvae into living caterpillars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UkDMrG6tog
I submit that even this incredible cruelty does not imply that we should condemn the wasps as monsters deserving death.
Declaring a person ethically bankrupt and distancing ourselves from that person is perfectly acceptable, but we must remember that some of our own behavior will inevitably be against the morals of Someone. Wearing a leather belt and eating a hamburger may be against the morals of a devout Hindu, does that give him justification to condemn me and MovieBob to death? Is the Westboro Baptist Church justified in their moral condemnations?
I unequivocally do not agree with Vick's choices regarding dog fighting. However, so long as he does not harm humans, I do not believe that we, or the government, have the right to prevent him from doing what he pleases on his own property with his legally owned animals.
Really? I don't think that was a very good argument at all. Nature is cruel out of necessity. Said wasps parasitize other creatures to reproduce. Michael Vick didn't have to kill dogs to ensure the next generation of his species. He didn't even have to do that to survive; he was already a Goddamn NFL star, one of the highest-paid men in the country.roostuf said:a fine argument sir, very compelling and i respect the fact that this is in your own opinion, but as you said no one will agree on everything. and for your comment i must disagree, he earned a profit from the suffering of other living beings. i applaud your comment and it makes sense to me but i cant agree.HeartAttackBob said:Susan Arendt said:He was a millionaire who got his jollies torturing and killing innocent animals. He can die in a damn fire.While I agree that torturing and killing dogs for entertainment is repugnant and ethically wrong, I have to respectfully disagree with the condemnation of Vick.roostuf said:people who deliberately train and gain profit from the cruelty of less beings(animals) should shot.
Nature is far more creatively cruel than Michael Vick could ever hope to be. There are many examples, but the first that comes to mind are wasps that implant their parasitic larvae into living caterpillars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UkDMrG6tog
I submit that even this incredible cruelty does not imply that we should condemn the wasps as monsters deserving death.
Declaring a person ethically bankrupt and distancing ourselves from that person is perfectly acceptable, but we must remember that some of our own behavior will inevitably be against the morals of Someone. Wearing a leather belt and eating a hamburger may be against the morals of a devout Hindu, does that give him justification to condemn me and MovieBob to death? Is the Westboro Baptist Church justified in their moral condemnations?
I unequivocally do not agree with Vick's choices regarding dog fighting. However, so long as he does not harm humans, I do not believe that we, or the government, have the right to prevent him from doing what he pleases on his own property with his legally owned animals.
Why... why should he get 15 years. I would really like a semi logical reason if anyone can possibly provide one. I wouldnt even mind an honest emotional response but someone explain why a human's life must be destroyed as an even exchange for an animals... a dog no lessOptimusPrime33 said:On a scale of 1 - Hitler on the sick twisted scumbag list. Michael Vick is a Michael Vick.
Anyhow yeah, he shouldn't even be nominated for something like this, this is like playing the main character in a movie, only this is a picture on a videogame box butanyway, the best thing Vick EVER got from doing the things he did was getting back into the NFL. He should have been in jail for 15 years because of this, but as always, our justice system is completely fucked up.
Heres the thing. Cover stars are good at their job (in the case of football, hitting people and/or handling the ball).MovieBob said:... and why anyone would want Michael Vick on the cover?