27 Aug 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesI think PETA and other animal rights activists definitely have the right to protest and claim that the NFL shouldn't be so easy on letting Vick back, but I don't really have a dog in that fight (HAH!).
Are there any groups out there devoted to "ex-convict's rights"?
A major issue here would involve what happens after a criminal has done their time and then tries to get a job. Understandably, most employers will be wary about hiring someone who has a record that includes doing time in prison. But if someone can't find legitimate work, it's very likely ...[text shortened]... ct's rights" group should be the ones leading the protest. But do any such groups exist?
I couldn't find any ex-convicts rights activist groups, but I think there probably should be one.
I did find one site:
http://www.lovingaconvict.org/
that is dedicated to supporting ex-convicts but I couldn't find any civil rights groups dedicated to ex-cons.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI'm not outraged either, nor an I particularly surprised. The NAACP is in a perpetual struggle to remain relevant in an era where de jure discrimination has already been outlawed.
I agree that it's a stretch for the NAACP to be involved here too... I'm just not outraged over it.
Of course the NAACP wouldn't come out and be involved if Vick was white - nor would I expect them to. Their mandate is primarily to fight for the civil rights of "colored people" (from their title) and that isn't racist as long as they aren't fighting f ...[text shortened]... icities and they aren't somehow saying that a white dog fighter not get a second chance.
The organization was formed to fight and protect against de jure discrimination, As you can see from its own history page, its mission has changed and adapted time and time again as history has rendered its original mission mostly obsolete.
http://www.naacp.org/about/history/
As de jure discrimination has already been outlawed in most cases, civil rights organizations should focus on disadvantaged members of all races, not one particular one.
However, I don't blame them for not wanting to give up such a powerful political machine and a solid money making enterprise.
But the causes it chooses to champion these days make it plain that, as great as the organization once was, it now teters on the brink of irrelevancy.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76I agree that our society has become less racist than in the past and gradually they will become irrelevant.
I'm not outraged either, nor an I particularly surprised. The NAACP is in a perpetual struggle to remain relevant in an era where de jure discrimination has already been outlawed.
The organization was formed to fight and protect against de jure discrimination, As you can see from its own history page, its mission has changed and adapted time and time again ...[text shortened]... plain that, as great as the organization once was, it now teters on the brink of irrelevancy.
I hope all civil rights groups become irrelevant eventually.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by whodeyI think they are a group that tries to provide a voice for when there is an incident of racism or prejudice and there is value in that.
To have worth one must point to ther reason. So in your estimation, what "good" are they doing today?
Now, I frankly don't keep up on all the activities of the NAACP but their value shouldn't be judged solely on their actions of this one event.
27 Aug 09
I am certainly not one to normally support the NAACP but Vick deserves support. Vick received an amazingly harsh sentence (for killing animals) because of his celebrity when guys like Leonard Little and Dante Stalworth (who killed humans) receive virtually no time in jail. Vick is then forced to miss at least six more games, people continue to protest where he plays making his options to play even more limited, he had a $130 million contract voided, he lost all his endorcements. There are now people claiming he never was really good anyway.
It makes sense that an organization that is concerned with equal treatment would be concerned that the first black quaterback picked #1 in the draft is getting railroaded.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by quackquackVick's punishment would've been much lighter if he'd been abusing squirrels -- for that matter, if he'd been pumping lead into deer or turkeys, he'd be considered a proud outdoorsman and would probably have his own hunting show on OLN airing just before the day's Tour de France coverage.
I am certainly not one to normally support the NAACP but Vick deserves support. Vick received an amazingly harsh sentence (for killing animals) because of his celebrity when guys like Leonard Little and Dante Stalworth (who killed humans) receive virtually no time in jail. Vick is then forced to miss at least six more games, people continue to protest w ...[text shortened]... would be concerned that the first black quaterback picked #1 in the draft is getting railroaded.
So the real issue wasn't "cruelty to animals" - it was "cruelty to dogs". In America (and elsewhere), dogs are essentially sacred animals. They are subject to a much higher level of protection than other animals (except maybe horses). Indeed, there are no doubt some people who love their dogs more than their own children.
27 Aug 09
Originally posted by quackquackDoesn't that imply more that guys like Leonard Little and Dante Stalworth got amazingly light sentences and not that Vick got an amazingly harsh sentence?
Vick received an amazingly harsh sentence (for killing animals) because of his celebrity when guys like Leonard Little and Dante Stalworth (who killed humans) receive virtually no time in jail.
Do you think Little and Stalworth's sentences were fair then?
I don't know who these people are, but I'm just thinking I might think the conclusion might be different.
27 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnLittle and Stallworth both did not hurt anyone on purpose. I know that their incidents involved human beings; but there's a big difference between hurting someone negligently (or recklessly) and intentionally. Vick's actions were directed against animals, but they were exceptionally purposefully and cruel, and they were not an isolated incident, but a years long pattern of exceptionally cruel behavior. The stories of what Vick and his pals consistently did to the dogs almost beggar the imagination.
Doesn't that imply more that guys like Leonard Little and Dante Stalworth got amazingly light sentences and not that Vick got an amazingly harsh sentence?
Do you think Little and Stalworth's sentences were fair then?
I don't know who these people are, but I'm just thinking I might think the conclusion might be different.
I'm not saying he shouldn't get another chance. He should, and he will. But I don't think he was treated unfairly.
If there's one guy who has a legit complaint, it's Plaxico Burress, who got 2 years in prison for something that in most of the country, he would have gotten less than a year or no time for. Now, there's a guy who shot himself in the foot, so to speak.