Analogies are great. Would I suggest that Michael Vick open a dog kennel if his football career is over? Likely not a good choice. So placing a pedophile in charge of children might not be the best path either.
Of course in the end the fact that you consider it fair to compare pedophilia to betting on dog fights is somewhat disturbing.
As for what is in a man’s heart, I repeat, that is a judgement call you are making about another–and why the whole “casting the first stone” thing is applicable. You see yourself as so pure of heart that you can see directly into another man’s heart and judge him. I am looking forward to your canonization…
Regarding role models, our society wants to make football players role models far beyond any realistic expectations given the importance of what they do. But a reformed Mike Vick can in fact have a tremendously positive impact upon kids.
I made no comparison to the actions. In fact I acknowledged that it was different, yet you so conveniently ignore that to make your cliche point. I only compared, in an exaggerated way, to make the point that even in repentance, there is, and should be, often a permanant price to pay for past misdeeds.
I have not judged what is in his heart. I have said that it will take him some time to prove either way, and that he needs to earn the beleif in his “true repentance” Also, at no time have I claimed to be pure of heart, or anything close to it.
If I remember correctly, he also financed the operation and was responsible for the deaths of some of the dogs. A little more than just “betting on dog fights.”
Yeah, a guy can make a mistake, repent, and be different, but most criminals do not, at least not in their heart
If you are not judging what is in a man's heart, please explain this comment?
Sounded like a judgement to me.......
And if you are not claiming to be pure of heart, then perhaps you do not yet understand the whole "cast the first stone" debate. If you are pure of heart, toss away. If you are not, then talking about what is in another man's heart and calling him filth is being hypocritical. So either you are claiming such purity, or you are a hypocritic? I am sure you would prefer not to be boxed in like that, so perhaps you might reconsider your position somewhat...
And if you weren't trying to make a direct comparison of pedophilia to dogfighting, whydid you bring it up? I thought it was a lousy analogy, so I said so. But when people use lousy analogies, I generally do try to work with it--either by extending it, or by exposing it. Interestingly enough, most of the time, people get offended by that and, as you have done, run screaming away from their analogy....if the analogy was any good in the first place, you wouldn't run away from it at the first opportunity...
And of course Vick will need to prove himself. The difference is, you don’t particularly want to give him any opportunity to do so, while I do…
These are completely different issues. Without getting into the Rider argument again please, Michael Vick is one man, not a league, a team, a faceless corporation. People can relate to real people, and many people can understand second chances. I agree that his crime seems heinous (though I don’t know all the facts), but he is in jail for those crimes and is paying the price. Someone mentioned that if he made good with the community, indicated that he wished to stay in the community, and worked hard to be a good citizen, why should he not be given another chance to do what he is good at?
Society gives felons a second chance all the time. Do Canadians get banished to purgatory for ever for impaired driving? What about Martha Stewart? It’s not like he’s another Pete Rose who gambled on a sport he was actively involved in.
If he can show that he is reformed and is willing to make an effort to prove that, then why shouldn’t he be allowed to? It’s not a problem from a marketing perspective - people love to root for the bad boy made good and they will in the CFL too. It’s nothing to laugh about and ridicule - it’s a kind society doing what it does best.
I suppose I could rehash the entire trial for everyone, in all its detail…I thought that what I said was enough…
Usually peoplw want me to be briefer…
But I’ll ask a more specific question. Who here thinks that what Michael Vick did rises to the moral equivalent of pedophilia? Even close?
its a generalized statement that does not make an assumption, or judgement, of any particular person.
I think if it you who is not understanding that whole “cast the first stone” thing. First, Jesus was not telling them to accept her being a prostitute. He was not telling them not to expect her to change her ways. IN fact, he told her to change her ways. He also was not addressing only the outward actions of the situation, ie should a person be punished for doing wrong while on this earth, by any other imperfect person. Otherwise, God would be against our whole justice system, for by your apparent argument, no man could ever sit in judgement of another in any way shape or form, nor met out any form of punishment, be it prison, fines or whatever. What Jesus was doing was looking into the hearts of those who wanted to stone her and seeing that their motives were not righteous. He also, as only he could, was able to look into the heart of this woman and know if indeed she would repent as he told her to. He was not telling us that we could not have an opinion of the right and wrong of various issues, nor that we could not judge actions.
As I said above, I did not assume what was in Vicks heart, only that he has to prove if he has “changed” and that IMO, most do not change so easy. ie: if I had to bet on it, I would go with the odds.
Not an assumption, just a guess.
AS for calling him filth, I already addressed that in previous post.
run away from it? Are you for real?? If you dont understand the point of “bringing it up”, I dont think any further attempt to make it clear to you will get us anywhere.
Does he have to play pro football to prove himself? I am find with giving him all the opportunity he needs to prove himself. Just dont want him playing ball while or until he does so.
Many people in many professions have to give up those careers for even less mistakes. Judges, cops, teachers, etc, do things for which they dont even do jail time, often are not even charged, yet their career is toast and they have to accept it and move on, regardless of whether or not they have “changed”. True repentance, acknowledges both the wrong you did, and the price you must pay, and doesnt whine about having to pay that price.
Athletically, he would do very well, but the circus that goes with it would be immense. Sort of like the team that signs "Barry Bonds".
It will be interesting to see,
Well, I never said they were on par and personally, I’d rather not get into that argument. I’ll save that for you and FYB. It just sounded to me like you were trying to trivialize what Vick did just to make your point.
I think what he did is bordering on trivial. When comparing it to things people do in this world that are really bad, like pedohilia, or beating ones spouse, that kind of thing, it is trivial. And yet people are on here talking about Vick in terms I would hestitate to use if I were talking about a mass murderer. So actually, yes, I was showing how trivial what he did was…by comparison…
First, it was your comparison, not mine. Again, if the analogy were strong, you would not be backing away from it so strongly. Did you or did you not try to directly compare allowing a pedophile to teach children to allowing Vick, whose crime was totally unrelated to his profession, to play football? I understand examining an esxtreme to make a point, or the use of hyperboly. In either case, as with an analogy, you don’t need to back away from what you said, just defend it. But you are backing away. Suggests to me you agree with me–it was not a good analogy–which is all I am “harping” on.
And I always assume other people will read this stuff–not just the protaganists–so for those who think it is a fair analogy, it needs to be made clear…
The fact is that what he did was criminal, maybe it was trivial to you but it was still a criminal act.(and yes by definition it make him a criminal)
What I want to know is. do be want him here in the first place? Are we that insure about our league that we need to take take a big name regardless of what they have done?
To add to what someone else said…
Having 2 teams with the name name makes us look bush!
The single makes us looks bush.
Bad reffing makes us look bush.
But signing druggies and criminals makes us look like the big league?
Say what you want about the NFL but at least they have the morals to get rid of those who make them look bush!
Many people in many professions have to give up those careers for even less mistakes. Judges, cops, teachers, etc, do things for which they dont even do jail time, often are not even charged, yet their career is toast and they have to accept it and move on, regardless of whether or not they have "changed". True repentance, acknowledges both the wrong you did, and the price you must pay, and doesnt whine about having to pay that price.
Good point. I believe I addressed that issue, somewhat. So you are comparing playing football to the role of being a judge, a cop, even a teacher? You see them as equal now? I do not.
But even if they were, if a teacher ran a dog fighting ring, I actually can't see any reason why they should not be allowed to resume their career as a teacher?
As for whining, who is whining? Is Vick on here whining about anything? Didn’t think so. He is the only one who can whine in the manner you suggest. We are having a completely different discussion here. About what is a fair response to Vick. You think he is down, but keep kicking him anyway. And many people agree with you. I don’t understand that point of view and think it is actually rather silly.
I personally could care less if Micheal Vick ever plays football again. This is about why anyone thinks he should not even be given the opportunity…
Actually, I am secure enough in our league to not care one way or the other if a guy like Vick came here. As I just said in my previous point is, why would it matter, either way? If it were a guy no one ever heard of, but in his past he had been in prison for dog fighting, but he can play football, I say sign him. Let him play. Name recognition should have nothing to do with the basic argument. Signing “druggies and criminals” doesn’t make us look bush. However, as a society, forever condemning those who make a mistake in their life certainly makes our society look pathetic…
Arius. I dont know. I say one thing, and you hearingreading another. I dont know what to do about that, so I surrender. Vick just aint worth this much discussion to me.
I don’t know…I am hearing/reading that you believe Michael Vick should not be allowed to play football ever again. Is that or is that not your position?
I fundamentally disagree with you on that point.
Is it worth the discussion? That is up to you. But I’ll sum it up this way, and you can agree or disagree–doesn’t matter.
You want to live in a society that will not give a guy who participates in dog fighting a second chance. I don’t want to live in a society that will not.
That is a pretty significant and fundamental difference in our world view…
thats pretty much it, except play football and second chance are not the same thing. I dont want him playing pro ball again, at least not for a few yrs. As for society in general giving him a second chance to be a decent citizen, I am all for that.
So if he wanted to be a school teacher or a fireman or a policeman, you are okay with that? If he were teaching your kids 3 years from now, just as long as he never plays football, that is alright?
As for “not playing for a few years”, excuse me? That is a given. We are talking about after those “few years” are up. If you mean “a few more” then you do mean never, as by then he is 35 and 6 years out of football–that is never again. Either he gets his chance once out of jail (within a year–there is speculation the NFL may suspend him for a year at that time) or it is never.
But you are right. Football and second chance are not the samething. I just fail to see what part of “second chance” thereby precludes football…
Just slightly aside, where do you (or anyone) stand on Adarius Bowman, the Riders latest “criminal” signing…?