What regular people beat their dog’s head into the ground man? :lol:
I mean, there’s like being drunk in an interview, and there’s muzzling Fido and using him for canine target practice…
[/quote]
I had no idea that the only people that were in dog fighting were famous people :ham:. Regular people meaning the rest of the population that is not in the spotlight. People you and I have no idea even exist and still take part in actions like this. Think for a second before typing next time.
:picard: You seem to be arguing that he shouldn’t be condemned for being famous, but nobody’s arguing that he should.
Trueblue’s contrasting being drunk in an interview against torturing animals was meant to demonstrate that he’s not just a famous athlete being comdemned for an error in proper famous person conduct, but rather is a person who has (allegedly) done awful things and also happens to be famous.
I don’t care if he’s a pro athlete or a beggar off the street. He’s (allegedly) been torturing animals for years for his own amusement. That’s what he’s being condemned for.
blah blah blah… As I’ve already stated, as a country I basically don’t care what happens outside our borders, for lots of reasons. Some of those reason are valid, some are callous, but it’s a fact that I generally don’t care. If I don’t think that this country can impact something that is beyond it’s borders then that is automatically the consensus on the entire nation.
more blah blah, dog in the United State > human outside of United States.
:picard: You seem to be arguing that he shouldn’t be condemned for being famous, but nobody’s arguing that he should.
Trueblue’s contrasting being drunk in an interview against torturing animals was meant to demonstrate that he’s not just a famous athlete being comdemned for an error in proper famous person conduct, but rather is a person who has (allegedly) done awful things and also happens to be famous.
I don’t care if he’s a pro athlete or a beggar off the street. He’s (allegedly) been torturing animals for years for his own amusement. That’s what he’s being condemned for.
[/quote]
Well, the start of this thread was about being innocent before proven guilty and how he is being treated as already guilty by most of society. I am saying that he is being treated this way because he is an athlete/famous. If you or I were accused of dog fighting not too many people would care or make a big fuss about it beyond a local aspect. There would not be protests or people taking our jobs away.
I’m not saying he is innocent or what he did was a good thing. I think he is a scumbag for what he did, but is being treated differently for the same thing just because of who he is.
Well, the start of this thread was about being innocent before proven guilty and how he is being treated as already guilty by most of society. I am saying that he is being treated this way because he is an athlete/famous. If you or I were accused of dog fighting not too many people would care or make a big fuss about it beyond a local aspect. There would not be protests or people taking our jobs away.
[/quote]
:picard: I’m a fan of reality.
He IS famous and there IS enough evidence against him for the public to not like him so he IS in danger of losing things that have come to him as a result of the public liking him (such as endorsements.) Don’t argue for a false reality. Either he’s famous and in the eye of the public come good or bad, or he’s not. Why should people pretend he’s not famous when the bad comes?
He IS famous and there IS enough evidence against him for the public to not like him so he IS in danger of losing things that have come to him as a result of the public liking him (such as endorsements.) Don’t argue for a false reality. Either he’s famous and in the eye of the public come good or bad, or he’s not.
[/quote]
Thank you for making my point . This part is perfect, “eye of the public come good or bad”, if he wrote a multi million dollar check to charity or gave away most of his earnings it wouldn’t even make mainline news. The eye of the public is non existent when it comes to famous individuals and good deeds.
If Vick adopted 50 abandoned animals instead of this it would only show up in local papers and nobody would give a shit. Famous individuals do get the short end of the stick when it comes to publicity, always about the bad and almost never hear about the good.
Thank you for making my point . This part is perfect, “eye of the public come good or bad”, if he wrote a multi million dollar check to charity or gave away most of his earnings it wouldn’t even make mainline news. The eye of the public is non existent when it comes to famous individuals and good deeds.
If Vick adopted 50 abandoned animals instead of this it would only show up in local papers and nobody would give a shit. Famous individuals do get the short end of the stick when it comes to publicity, always about the bad and almost never hear about the good.
[/quote]
uhm its all over what he actually does for the poor kids of Virginia, it is whether you pay attention to it or not.
uhm its all over what he actually does for the poor kids of Virginia, it is whether you pay attention to it or not.
[/quote]
I watch/read national news every single night. Not once have I seen or read about what Michael Vick does for kids in Virginia previous to the dog fighting allegations
I watch/read national news every single night. Not once have I seen or read about what Michael Vick does for kids in Virginia previous to the dog fighting allegations
[/quote]
then you are not paying attention, he buys almost all school supplies for multiple schools, buys thanksgiving/christmas dinners for multiple families, etc…
Thank you for making my point . This part is perfect, “eye of the public come good or bad”, if he wrote a multi million dollar check to charity or gave away most of his earnings it wouldn’t even make mainline news. The eye of the public is non existent when it comes to famous individuals and good deeds.
If Vick adopted 50 abandoned animals instead of this it would only show up in local papers and nobody would give a shit. Famous individuals do get the short end of the stick when it comes to publicity, always about the bad and almost never hear about the good.
[/quote]
Hmm. Maybe we’re arguing the same point? Yeah he gets screwed, the media’s always quick to jump on anything bad. It sells it gets people interested, etc. But if he does good it barely gets noticed. That’s not to say that it isn’t justified for him to lose endorsements if he’s convicted of something terrible, but he and celebrities in general don’t get equal applause for doing good as boo’s for doing bad. Unfair, but c’est la vie.
I guess I don’t think he’s being treated unfair for what he’s allegedly done just because he’s famous. But it is unfair that he doesn’t/hasn’t been congratulated equally for the good things he’s done.
Hmm. Maybe we’re arguing the same point? Yeah he gets screwed, the media’s always quick to jump on anything bad. It sells it gets people interested, etc. But if he does good it barely gets noticed. That’s not to say that it isn’t justified for him to lose endorsements if he’s convicted of something terrible, but he and celebrities in general don’t get equal applause for doing good as boo’s for doing bad. Unfair, but c’est la vie.
I guess I don’t think he’s being treated unfair for what he’s allegedly done just because he’s famous. But it is unfair that he doesn’t/hasn’t been congratulated equally for the good things he’s done.
Not to belittle what good deeds he or any other famous person has done, but dropping a hundred thousand on charities isn’t a big deal when you’re worth 130 million. It’s .07% of your worth. Don’t get me wrong, it’s helpful, and it’s great they do it, but I’m not going to nominate anyone for sainthood because they made a donation that doesn’t affect their bottom line in the slightest. It’s news when someone like Buffet donates a huge chunk of his net worth, not when some superstar donates what to you or I is the change we find when we vacuum the car.
I’d much rather see recognition for the guy who makes 50k a year who actually gives the 10% charitable contributions the tax people say you should be giving. 10% when you make 50k means a hell of a lot more than .0X% when you make millions.
I just laugh at the fact that the NAACP were the first ones to attack the Duke Lacrosse players. They were found Not Guilty, but the NAACP wanted them to be found guilty and said how horrible they were. Now they say to wait for a verdict before you pass judgement… interesting.
Not to belittle what good deeds he or any other famous person has done, but dropping a hundred thousand on charities isn’t a big deal when you’re worth 130 million. It’s .07% of your worth. Don’t get me wrong, it’s helpful, and it’s great they do it, but I’m not going to nominate anyone for sainthood because they made a donation that doesn’t affect their bottom line in the slightest. It’s news when someone like Buffet donates a huge chunk of his net worth, not when some superstar donates what to you or I is the change we find when we vacuum the car.
I’d much rather see recognition for the guy who makes 50k a year who actually gives the 10% charitable contributions the tax people say you should be giving. 10% when you make 50k means a hell of a lot more than .0X% when you make millions.
[/quote]
Reminds me of an editorial I read a few years ago…
. This part is perfect, “eye of the public come good or bad”, if he wrote a multi million dollar check to charity or gave away most of his earnings it wouldn’t even make mainline news. The eye of the public is non existent when it comes to famous individuals and good deeds.