DC Tom Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 I'll take unproven allegations over proven criminal activity any day. Having said that...neither offended me. I have no vested interest in either situation.
CosmicBills Posted February 23, 2011 Author Posted February 23, 2011 Really... Yuppers. Reading comprehension: try it out. I know you don't employ it much, if at all, on this board, but it's worth a shot. After all, it might suit you!
OCinBuffalo Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 C. Although I recognize both crimes as crimes that require justice, I don't recognize my, or anyone other than the people directly affected, right to be personally offended by any of it. Too many people running around thinking they are allowed to be offended by too many things. Did Vick kill your dog? No. Did Ben mess with your sister/daughter? No. Did any of this happen within 50 miles of your house? No. If somebody you don't know, kills 15 people you don't know, 3 states away, are you....offended? Of course you aren't. None of you have the right to be personally offended by any of this, no more so than you were "offended"(read: couldn't care less) by the number of anonymous rapes and murders of humans, never mind dogs, last night alone. However, dog raping may be an exception.... In all cases, please , the rest of us do not exist in a state of perpetual tiptoeing around your precious sensibilities, because we are sooooo worried that we might offend you, or because you have a sister/daughter, or a dog. If the easily "offended" spent .5 of the time they spend "being offended" and babbling about it, on something useful like volunteering, or God forbid, on their kids, we'd all be better for it. Selective "being offended" is driven by one thing: celebrity status. Otherwise known as "phony as hell". If you need DMZ, or Huffington Nonsense, to tell you that you should be offended by something that has exactly 0 to do with you, on any level...it's time to re-evaluate your reason for being. The state of "being offended" is not a substitute for action, for doing something positive to improve your community. Instead, it's a selfish and/or wannabe "see, my opinion does matter" act. The retarded "victimhood" culture is directly responsible for this nonsense. Time to get a grip.
section122 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 really? lmao @ how simplistically some people think i dont have any daughters so yeah i cant possibly understand that jamming your dick down unwilling girls throats is super douchey thank god for the people that have xxxxx (whatever the issue is) so they can tell all of us that dont have xxxxx how we are supposed to feel lololol. man cant make this stuff up I don't think that was at all was meant by his post. More like having those things would bias your opinion. I don't think anyone thinks either of them were good the poll is about which was in your opinion worse.
Mr. WEO Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Yuppers. Reading comprehension: try it out. I know you don't employ it much, if at all, on this board, but it's worth a shot. After all, it might suit you! Yes, I struggle with bulls***. See your other posts on this topic in another thread for instance. Interesting your "work poll" thread appears less than a half hour after you go off on your wacky "media fawned over/forgave" BR's serial "sexual assualts" rant on the Newton thread.
section122 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 C. Although I recognize both crimes as crimes that require justice, I don't recognize my, or anyone other than the people directly affected, right to be personally offended by any of it. Too many people running around thinking they are allowed to be offended by too many things. Did Vick kill your dog? No. Did Ben mess with your sister/daughter? No. Did any of this happen within 50 miles of your house? No. If somebody you don't know, kills 15 people you don't know, 3 states away, are you....offended? Of course you aren't. None of you have the right to be personally offended by any of this, no more so than you were "offended"(read: couldn't care less) by the number of anonymous rapes and murders of humans, never mind dogs, last night alone. However, dog raping may be an exception.... In all cases, please , the rest of us do not exist in a state of perpetual tiptoeing around your precious sensibilities, because we are sooooo worried that we might offend you, or because you have a sister/daughter, or a dog. If the easily "offended" spent .5 of the time they spend "being offended" and babbling about it, on something useful like volunteering, or God forbid, on their kids, we'd all be better for it. Selective "being offended" is driven by one thing: celebrity status. Otherwise known as "phony as hell". If you need DMZ, or Huffington Nonsense, to tell you that you should be offended by something that has exactly 0 to do with you, on any level...it's time to re-evaluate your reason for being. The state of "being offended" is not a substitute for action, for doing something positive to improve your community. Instead, it's a selfish and/or wannabe "see, my opinion does matter" act. The retarded "victimhood" culture is directly responsible for this nonsense. Time to get a grip. So people can't have an opinion on something that didn't directly affect them? Let me ask was the holocaust offensive? Having an opinion is everyones right and you post on an opinion forum and "see your opinion does matter"
OCinBuffalo Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 So people can't have an opinion on something that didn't directly affect them? Let me ask was the holocaust offensive? Having an opinion is everyones right and you post on an opinion forum and "see your opinion does matter" That's not what I said at all. Opinions '= the right to be offended, and therefore, demand that the offender submit a personal apology to you, Little Lord Fauntleroy. The holocaust is exactly as offensive to me as the slaughter of innocent people by Cromwell, or by the Ghengis Khan "hunts" or the Jim Jones mass suicide. All are terrible, heart-wrenching historical facts, but I don't get to walk around pretending like I am victim of any of it, which means I don't get to be offended by any of it, and neither do you.
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 really? lmao @ how simplistically some people think i dont have any daughters so yeah i cant possibly understand that jamming your dick down unwilling girls throats is super douchey Have a little girl some time and "thinking he's super douchey" will turn to "I will punch the guy in the !@#$ing jaw if I ever see him, and I don't care how big he is." That has nothing to do with Mike Vick, BTW, and just to do with my own opinion. And basically, what was said above was right. I just meant if you're a big dog-lover, it might bias your opinion one way, if you're a father of a girl, maybe another - among many other indicators... I also said that there were myriad factors involved in potential responses that make a "choose A or B" yield a result that isn't that telling. If that's simplistic to you, I bow to your superior knowledge.
section122 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 That's not what I said at all. Opinions '= the right to be offended, and therefore, demand that the offender submit a personal apology to you, Little Lord Fauntleroy. The holocaust is exactly as offensive to me as the slaughter of innocent people by Cromwell, or by the Ghengis Khan "hunts" or the Jim Jones mass suicide. All are terrible, heart-wrenching historical facts, but I don't get to walk around pretending like I am victim of any of it, which means I don't get to be offended by any of it, and neither do you. So your just grammar policing on an extreme level... sweet Read my original post I'm not personally offended by any of this but I understood the op and poll to read which of these do you feel is the worse action. Btw sweet 80s reference..........
Bill from NYC Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Are there really people who compare the worth of human women to that of dogs? Vick is a scumbag. He abused dogs. BR is worse. He is a rapist. He raped women. There is no comparison. Wow.
Mark Long Beach Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Vick's crimes were the result of months of planning and premeditated acts. The number of dogs he tortured and killed "for fun" goes into the hundreds and repeated daily over years. The acts that were committed against these animals would even make a POW cringe. Michael Vick is a sociopathic monster. Im not going to try to compare the two in a post because it will sound like Im excusing Ben, or that what he did wasnt so bad, which is not true. I just think the way Vick's crimes were carried out shows much more evil. Dogs are not people. Therefore Vick isn't sociopathic. In the wrong, absolutely. But not sociopathic. I view it quite simply: people >> dogs. When you throw in Vick being surrounded by it socially, it makes it more sad for me (still wrong). Also important for me is that Vick has been apologetic and contrite and BBen has not.
VADC Bills Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) I think a lot of your answers are going to be determined by whether your respondents have daughters, or dogs, or both. As a father, the fact at Ben is that much of a scumbag (or worse) and faces few consequences trumps Vick's crime. I think the problems for many are: 1) that Ben wasn't convicted of anything, Vick was 2) there are inherent racial politics in such a poll, and 3) saying one was worse suggests to some people the conclusion that the other act isn't bad - which is ludicrous. Totally agree. You bring up 2 very valid points along the lines of fathers with daughters and racial politics. So I would like to bring up a point on the racial politics, legal politics and pateral politics. I have seen a few posters mention the fact that Vick was worse because he was convicted and Ben wasn't. So these are posters that are very legally righteous. I'm sure when we talk one our favorite RB's OJ Simpson, you remember the guy that was not convicted of murder. Something tells me that the legally righteous wasn't standing so proudly to defend him. If not, you are probably employing your own racial polictics under the guise of course that Ben was never convicted. In other words is the color line is stronger than the legally righteous care to admit. Let me ask the question, you are a family man with a great wife, a daughter named Donna hoe and the lovable family mutt named Jauron. A man comes by the your house when no one is there and kills Jauron, the dog almost everyone loved. The next day another man comes to the house and rapes your daughter Donna hoe. Which man are you more angry at? I would be mad at the dog killer but I would have a tremendous urge to bust a few caps in the a$$ of someone that would rape my daughter, It sounds like some on this board (the legally righteous) would be more angry at the dog killer. Would you feel the same if Ben was black and Vick was white? Edited February 24, 2011 by VADC Bills
boyst Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Amazing, the results so far indicate that people think less of someone who is still "innocent until proven guilty." My we as a culture as very funny.
VADC Bills Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Amazing, the results so far indicate that people think less of someone who is still "innocent until proven guilty." My we as a culture as very funny. Give people credit for having common sense. People recognize BS when they see or hear it especially Bills fans. Edited February 24, 2011 by VADC Bills
boyst Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Give people credit for having common sense. People recognize BS when they see or hear it especially Bills fans. With the understanding that Bills fans understand BS, as you lump them all together, then I must wonder how wise are we? I will not judge someone who is not convicted and I will not judge someone who was convicted - it is not my place. However, if you are to ask me what I think of the difference between the two, then surely everyone would agree that Ben was not found guilty and only so much can be said. ...Of course, because there was "real" answer to what happened we generate viewpoints based on gossip and speculation becase that is what our culture does. When it comes to Vick we find sollace in that he has already been tried and judged and it is over because of that when in reality Vick was convicted of serious crimes. For that alone, you must find his actions as more significant then those of Ben.
CosmicBills Posted February 24, 2011 Author Posted February 24, 2011 Yes, I struggle with bulls***. See your other posts on this topic in another thread for instance. Interesting your "work poll" thread appears less than a half hour after you go off on your wacky "media fawned over/forgave" BR's serial "sexual assualts" rant on the Newton thread. Please report to the other thread for your slap down. And then take a drink, puff a jay, whatever you need to do to calm down. It'll be okay. You're amongst friends.
Chimp Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 C. Although I recognize both crimes as crimes that require justice, I don't recognize my, or anyone other than the people directly affected, right to be personally offended by any of it. Too many people running around thinking they are allowed to be offended by too many things. Did Vick kill your dog? No. Did Ben mess with your sister/daughter? No. Did any of this happen within 50 miles of your house? No. If somebody you don't know, kills 15 people you don't know, 3 states away, are you....offended? Of course you aren't. None of you have the right to be personally offended by any of this, no more so than you were "offended"(read: couldn't care less) by the number of anonymous rapes and murders of humans, never mind dogs, last night alone. However, dog raping may be an exception.... In all cases, please , the rest of us do not exist in a state of perpetual tiptoeing around your precious sensibilities, because we are sooooo worried that we might offend you, or because you have a sister/daughter, or a dog. If the easily "offended" spent .5 of the time they spend "being offended" and babbling about it, on something useful like volunteering, or God forbid, on their kids, we'd all be better for it. Selective "being offended" is driven by one thing: celebrity status. Otherwise known as "phony as hell". If you need DMZ, or Huffington Nonsense, to tell you that you should be offended by something that has exactly 0 to do with you, on any level...it's time to re-evaluate your reason for being. The state of "being offended" is not a substitute for action, for doing something positive to improve your community. Instead, it's a selfish and/or wannabe "see, my opinion does matter" act. The retarded "victimhood" culture is directly responsible for this nonsense. Time to get a grip. This is the best post I have ever read here at TBD.
VADC Bills Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) With the understanding that Bills fans understand BS, as you lump them all together, then I must wonder how wise are we? I will not judge someone who is not convicted and I will not judge someone who was convicted - it is not my place. However, if you are to ask me what I think of the difference between the two, then surely everyone would agree that Ben was not found guilty and only so much can be said. ...Of course, because there was "real" answer to what happened we generate viewpoints based on gossip and speculation becase that is what our culture does. When it comes to Vick we find sollace in that he has already been tried and judged and it is over because of that when in reality Vick was convicted of serious crimes. For that alone, you must find his actions as more significant then those of Ben. Only if you believe the system is not flawed. I see a system that where innocent people are found guilty and the guilty can walk especially when money is involved. I think Ben paid for his innocence just as some feel OJ did. I don't think dog fighting is as bad as rape. The system is too flawed for me not to use my own judgement. Do you feel the system is perfect to take it at face value, I don't. I also admit I don't think we have the full story behind either case because both men did what they needed to do to free themselves as quickly as they could whether it was paying off an accuser or taking a plea bargain. So what is the real answer? Trust me you don't know. Edited February 24, 2011 by VADC Bills
Geno Smith's Arm Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) This is part one of a two part poll based on an interesting topic being floated around the office. Curious people's thoughts on here ... Which hurts more, a kick to the right ball, or a kick to the left ball? Both. Edited February 24, 2011 by Matthews' Bag
Recommended Posts