CosmicBills Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 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 ... Edited February 23, 2011 by tgreg99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdub Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I'm going with Vick here. Bottom line is that the only thing we know for sure on the Roethlisomething case is that he acted like a complete scumbag. No charges filed, no guilty convictions of rape or sexual assault. With Vick it was cut and dry that he was breaking the law and in an incredibly flagrant and inhumane way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Culturally there are pockets where dog fighting is completely acceptable. I for one don't agree with it. However I look at it in this perspective... if your born to catholic parents you will most likely be catholic. Born to jewish parents most likely jewish. Born into a community where dog fighting is seen as acceptable you too would find it acceptable. Again I disagree with it but I was raised that way. Nowhere in the world is sexual assault acceptable. Yes I know he was never charged but that to me means very little in terms of whether or not it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 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. I don't disagree with any of the points you raise. It's just a quick pulse check. No judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan in n.h Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 gee,sexual abuse against a human,forcing a female to have sex.against her will OR fighting dogs and killing some ANIMALS... tough choice.you should have your junk cut off with a butter knife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Neither one offended me. Their combined actions sound like a fun Thursday night on the town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 gee,sexual abuse against a human,forcing a female to have sex.against her will OR fighting dogs and killing some ANIMALS... tough choice.you should have your junk cut off with a butter knife Who do you mean? Big Ben or Vick? Or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 People over dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I don't disagree with any of the points you raise. It's just a quick pulse check. No judgment. No, of course. Just thinking about how the question might not get a comprehensive read. NW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbosrrgood Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) whats wrong with you people? Ben supposedly got drunk and fooled around with an equally irresponsible drunk girl, who I'm sure was impressed by the "celebrity" and was looking for a possible pay day. People do drunk stupid things all the time in bars. There was a reason he wasn't charged with a crime, this was no "innocent school girl" this was a drunk bar slut looking for a good time and then her 15 mins. Ben is an idiot and a dirt bag for the way it played out, but not a criminal. Vick ADMITTED to do sick sadistic things to Dogs. It's not necessarily even the dog fighting that makes it bad, its the torture he did to the dogs afterwards. This shows a pretty sick thought process. He maimed, tortured, and killed dogs and slow painful ways, and did it for FUN...He served time because of it. This is no contest, Vick is a sick criminal, Ben is just a scumbag. Edited February 23, 2011 by Turbosrrgood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I don't disagree with any of the points you raise. It's just a quick pulse check. No judgment. No judgement? Not disagreeing? Maybe you forgot this: Big Ben is an interesting comparison since this past season the media fawned all over Ben and forgave him for sexual assault (twice)...All the hype leading up to the Super Bowl was about him being redeemed if they won. It was everywhere. And yes, he has been accused twice. Anyway, both crimes are bad, but it's unlikely that any of Vick's dogs lied about their own mutilation/murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 whats wrong with you people? Ben supposedly got drunk and fooled around with an equally irresponsible drunk girl, who I'm sure was impressed by the "celebrity" and was looking for a possible pay day. Since you are so sure that you were obviously there, please provide your proof. I'm equally sure that guys take advantage of drunk girls all the time, and that Ben could have been doing the same. That doesn't make him any more admirable, and it also doesn't provide me any further proof. The difference is that you're making all sorts of assumptions about the girl and the situation without providing any facts. People do drunk stupid things all the time in bars. He wasn't even accused of a crime. And unless sexual assault isn't a crime in Georgia, he was in fact accused. Not charged, and not convicted, but you'd have to be firing on two brain cells to believe that every sexual assault results in a case and ensuing conviction. Multiply that times 1000 when factoring in "big famous Super Bowl QB" and "irresponsible drunk girl." Vick ADMITTED to do sick sadistic things to Dogs. It's not necessarily even the dog fighting that makes it bad, its the torture he did to the dogs afterwards. This shows a pretty sick thought process. He maimed, tortured, and killed dogs and slow painful ways...He served time because of it. This is no contest, Vick is a sick criminal, Ben is just a scumbag. Vick did some time and has been contrite. Ben has been accused not just once and now "says all the right things" but has not had to face much aside from media scrutiny and an NFL sanction. Personally, I find it hard to think lesser of the guy who committed the deed against dogs and not humans, and has done everything in his power to atone for the mistakes, vs the guy who abuses women and hasn't had much more than a slap on the wrist as a result of it. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Tough one. I voted Vick because with Pig Ben, there was some modicum of consent. The dogs had no choice - fight or die, be electrocuted, beatened and burned. The guy was a heartless pr*ck. That said, Pig Ben disgusted me as well. It's like being asked if you were neck deep in a barrel of shite and someone threw a pail of p*ss at your face would you duck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Tough one. I voted Vick because with Pig Ben, there was some modicum of consent. I just don't believe we have the evidence to say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I think a lot of your answers are going to be determined by whether your respondents have daughters, or dogs, or both. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 No judgement? Not disagreeing? Maybe you forgot this: Anyway, both crimes are bad, but it's unlikely that any of Vick's dogs lied about their own mutilation/murder. You need to learn to read a bit more closely. The no judgment was in regards to people's choices in the poll ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunOJRun Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 this was no "innocent school girl" this was a drunk bar slut looking for a good time and then her 15 mins. Ben is an idiot and a dirt bag for the way it played out, but not a criminal. It's funny (actually, it's sad) how some people excuse rape and other types of sexual abuse because the victim may be a sexually active adult and, therefore, "asking for it." Crimes of sexual assault occur when particular acts prohibited by law take place, regardless of the victim's own consentual sexual behavior or any other illegal behavior on the part of the victim. For example, a prostitute wraps up an evening's work during which she had sex with a number of customers. She's walking a few blocks home to her condo from the hotel where she saw her last customer, when she's pulled into an alley and raped at knifepoint. Despite the fact that she provides sexual favors for money, most likely illegal in her state of residence, she's no less a victim of rape than a 79 year old grandmother raped during a home invasion. If someone doesn't consent to sexual activity and it's forced upon them in some manner, it's a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 You need to learn to read a bit more closely. The no judgment was in regards to people's choices in the poll ... Really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts