• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sterling vs Vick

Who is worse?

  • Stirling (racist comments)

    Votes: 5 13.9%
  • Vick (dog abuser/fighter/killer/torturer)

    Votes: 29 80.6%
  • Don't know/undecided

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • Total voters
    36
The dog killer went to jail and served his time. Once Sterling serves his punishment, he too can return to whatever it is he wants to do. His options are not just a few.

1. Accept all punishment, sell the team for a Billion Bucks and head off into the sunset.

2. Fight and run the risk of losing value when the NBA decommissions his team

3. Negotiate a settlement.

4. Pay fines and accept suspension but refuse to sell.

5. Sue everyone and anyone he feels wronged him


Seems to me, DS needs no crocodile tears from the peanut gallery.
I said pretty much the exact same thing when the story broke. All the NBA has to do is cite which rule or law/by-law he broke and they can feel free to act accordingly. The best 'punishment' for him would be for Clippers fans everywhere to empty the arena for a year.

Just dont pretend an 80 year old man making a racial comment to his 30 year old Latina girlfriend is on par with killing dogs for fun.
 
The dog killer went to jail and served his time. Once Sterling serves his punishment, he too can return to whatever it is he wants to do. His options are not just a few.

1. Accept all punishment, sell the team for a Billion Bucks and head off into the sunset.

2. Fight and run the risk of losing value when the NBA decommissions his team

3. Negotiate a settlement.

4. Pay fines and accept suspension but refuse to sell.

5. Sue everyone and anyone he feels wronged him


Seems to me, DS needs no crocodile tears from the peanut gallery.

I don't see why you think he should have "punishment." You want thought control? You want to use law and force to TRY to make people think a certain way? I think that if there are comments that hurt a particular person, then they should be able to perhaps sue him, but I don't think punishment should be enforced by the powers that be because of comments that he made which he thought were made in private.
 
I don't see why you think he should have "punishment." You want thought control? You want to use law and force to TRY to make people think a certain way? I think that if there are comments that hurt a particular person, then they should be able to perhaps sue him, but I don't think punishment should be enforced by the powers that be because of comments that he made which he thought were made in private.

Simple--he is in a business which heavily markets to blacks. His stupid comments to his whore is costing people money. He will be punished.

It's got nadda to do ith me or what I believe should happen. It's what will happen.


BTW, if it was up to me, those who torture animals would be shot. ANd, that includes whose who make your bacon as well as the Vick characters who fight dogs.
 
1. I said pretty much the exact same thing when the story broke. All the NBA has to do is cite which rule or law/by-law he broke and they can feel free to act accordingly. The best 'punishment' for him would be for Clippers fans everywhere to empty the arena for a year.

2. Just dont pretend an 80 year old man making a racial comment to his 30 year old Latina girlfriend is on par with killing dogs for fun.

1. Yes. Totally agree.

2. Yes. Totally agree.
 
Simple--he is in a business which heavily markets to blacks. His stupid comments to his whore is costing people money. He will be punished.

It's got nadda to do ith me or what I believe should happen. It's what will happen.


BTW, if it was up to me, those who torture animals would be shot. ANd, that includes whose who make your bacon as well as the Vick characters who fight dogs.

That's fine and should be left to the free market, but I don't think it's right for people to go out of their way to punish a person for what he thought were private comments. It's too much like thought control and "punishing" someone because of his private thoughts.
 
That's fine and should be left to the free market, but I don't think it's right for people to go out of their way to punish a person for what he thought were private comments. It's too much like thought control and "punishing" someone because of his private thoughts.

I'm not at all comfortable with private comments coming out to be used against someone in public. But, when the cat is out of the bag, it's not possible to put it back in. Sterling's comments playing all over the airwaves hurt the NBA. He will be punished. If for no other reason than to appease those who feel slighted---they are, after all, paying customers and consumers of very expensive gym shoes.
 
I'm not at all comfortable with private comments coming out to be used against someone in public. But, when the cat is out of the bag, it's not possible to put it back in. Sterling's comments playing all over the airwaves hurt the NBA. He will be punished. If for no other reason than to appease those who feel slighted---they are, after all, paying customers and consumers of very expensive gym shoes.

Right, and if players decide to not play for him anymore or if fans decide to not pay to see games, then that is the free market deciding. Punishments handed down by the league are not though.
 
Right, and if players decide to not play for him anymore or if fans decide to not pay to see games, then that is the free market deciding. Punishments handed down by the league are not though.

If I ran the league, I'd not schedule the Clippers in any games and release all the players from their contracts--assuming all the other owners agree--letting all the players find new teams and perhaps handing another owner an NBA team in LA, whom I would schedule immediately in games to replace the Clips.
 
Sterling isn't being judged by his "long history."

Sterling is being judged for his long history. Without his long history, the audio thing never ****ing happens.

you can ignore his long history of racism and being a piece of **** all you want, but that doesn't change reality.

"Meat farming" is feeding the masses. I don't equate meat farming in any way, shape or form to the horrible sport of dog fighting.

"The masses" aren't fed by meat farming. The amount of meat consumed in the US is by far and away luxury level ****, not sustenance level.

Meat consumption at this level is not only unnecessary, it's pretty much pure entertainment.

Again, ignoring relaity does not alter it. Just because YOU want to view something hypocritically does not change the fact that it is hypocrisy.


You need some coffee this morning, Tucker. You're cranky. I'm sure you know it's possible to have a difference of opinion without insulting someone.

Where did I insult anyone? I'm calling ignorant/hypocritical/stupid ideas, arguments, and statements what they are. If people don't like the fact that their ideas/positions are ignorant/hypocritical/stupid/etc then what they need to do is change their ideas/positions. I'm certainly not going to stop calling ignorant/hypocritical/stupid positions ignorant/hypocritical/stupid because they are too ****ing sensitive.
 
You are still embarrassing yourself. First you want to pretend that an 80 year old man that said something in private to a scorned 30 year old girlfriend is some great atrocious crime, FAR greater than a guy who actually committed acts that involved not only training dogs to fight and kill each other but personally engaged in brutally killing dogs that didnt measure up. THEN you doubled down on your stupid comment with your moronic comments about the holocaust.

You having a piss poor understanding of the reductio ad absurdem argument does nothing to embarrass me, vance. Stop pretending your ignorance should embarrass me.
 
Why does it matter why he did it.

Because we're discussing the concept of "worse person". He''s a horrible person who ONLY does positive things for personal gain.

Motive is certainly a factor in determining things. Example: Let's say I kill a man who is about to kill a bunch of children. A simple minded conclusion would be to assume I am a good person because I did this.

But let's say that I didn't really give a **** about saving the kids, but I actually just wanted to steal the guy's gun. Saving the kids wasn't even in my mind as a reason for doing the action. If that is the case, I'm still a piece of ****. The accidental fact that my actions did good play no role in altering how much of a piece of **** I am.

Ergo, his reason for the action is of paramount importance.
 
Sterling is being judged for his long history. Without his long history, the audio thing never ****ing happens.

you can ignore his long history of racism and being a piece of **** all you want, but that doesn't change reality.

"The masses" aren't fed by meat farming. The amount of meat consumed in the US is by far and away luxury level ****, not sustenance level.

Meat consumption at this level is not only unnecessary, it's pretty much pure entertainment.

Again, ignoring relaity does not alter it. Just because YOU want to view something hypocritically does not change the fact that it is hypocrisy.

Where did I insult anyone? I'm calling ignorant/hypocritical/stupid ideas, arguments, and statements what they are. If people don't like the fact that their ideas/positions are ignorant/hypocritical/stupid/etc then what they need to do is change their ideas/positions. I'm certainly not going to stop calling ignorant/hypocritical/stupid positions ignorant/hypocritical/stupid because they are too ****ing sensitive.

I don't agree with you. If you find the prejudice of an 80+-year-old man more egregious than Michael Vick's conduct in regards to dog fighting, that's your opinion. You are entitled to that opinion...without that opinion being called hypocritical and stupid.

In your case, regarding your opinion, I would just call it wrong-headed.
 
I guess in your fantasy world bullying a little girl and telling an adult woman in a private conversation something is the same.

Where did you get that utterly retarded idea from?

I'm demonstrating that you are totally full of **** when you claim that "Words do not damage anything".

As your own response proves, that claim you made was ****ing retarded. Even you cannot support it, and you ****ing made it.

I never said anything about bullying...

Actually you did. You said words can't damage anything.

Since that blanket statement INCLUDES words when used to bully, you most certainly did say something about bullying, you simple failed tyo comprehend what you yourself said. That's your ****ing fault for not thinking before talking.

I was talking about a comment made by somebody and other people deciding to take offense to it when they had no place to react to it.

Then you did a very ****ing pathetic job, since you said nothing even remotely close to that, but instead said some stupid ass bull**** which included the idea that verbal bullying doesn't damage anything.

At least have the balls to admit you said something stupid that you can't even support. Don't ***** out and pretend you said some totally different **** which you never said.
 
Stirling makes racist comments in a private conversation and is banned for life from the NBA.

Vick fights, abuses, tortures, kills dogs and is welcomed back into the NFL.

Who is worse?

Sterling is stupid. Vick is evil.
 
I don't agree with you. If you find the prejudice of an 80+-year-old man more egregious than Michael Vick's conduct in regards to dog fighting, that's your opinion. You are entitled to that opinion...without that opinion being called hypocritical and stupid.

In your case, regarding your opinion, I would just call it wrong-headed.


Does anyone have the decency to know what they are talking about before they speak anymore?

I'm not merely basing my assessment on his PREJUDICE. It's his actual racist behaviors.



Edited to add: Also, nobody is ENTITLED to have an opinion without having it called hypocritical or stupid. That's some ****ing stupid nonsense right there.

If someone has a hypocritical or stupid opinion, then they DESERVE to have that stupid hypocritical opinion called stupid and hypocritical. Opinions are not sacred things which can't be judged. Free speech is a bitch, if you share your opinion, you open yourself up to having that opinion judged.

I've noticed a big movement from people who want to hold stupid opinions yet don't want their stupid opinions called out for being stupid where they pretend that it's a violation of their freedom of speech to have their stupid opinions called out for being stupid.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have the decency to know what they are talking about before they speak anymore?

I'm not merely basing my assessment on his PREJUDICE. It's his actual racist behaviors.

Let me try this. The recipients of his racism, verbal or action, are capable of defending themselves.
As fas as I know, Vick's victims are not....unless Vick were to fight them on equal level, in the cage.
One old man against a united front vs dogs fighting until they are maimed or dead, not to mention the bait dogs.
 
Apparently not, Tucker. Thirty people agree with me. Five agree with you. Apparently not.

True story: I've been the only person who believed in evolution in a room full of dozens of people. Apparently, lots of people can believe stupid things and it doesn't make it any less stupid.
 
Let me try this. The recipients of his racism, verbal or action, are capable of defending themselves.
As fas as I know, Vick's victims are not....unless Vick were to fight them on equal level, in the cage.
One old man against a united front vs dogs fighting until they are maimed or dead, not to mention the bait dogs.

Are your "victims" able to defend themselves when you spray bug spray on an ant hill or wasp nest?
 
True story: I've been the only person who believed in evolution in a room full of dozens of people. Apparently, lots of people can believe stupid things and it doesn't make it any less stupid.

That's another thread, Tucker Case.
 
It's a perfect demonstration of why an appeal to popularity is fallacious reasoning.

Only if you believe in evolution, Tucker. If you don't? It's not a perfect demonstration at all.
 
Because we're discussing the concept of "worse person". He''s a horrible person who ONLY does positive things for personal gain.

Motive is certainly a factor in determining things. Example: Let's say I kill a man who is about to kill a bunch of children. A simple minded conclusion would be to assume I am a good person because I did this.

But let's say that I didn't really give a **** about saving the kids, but I actually just wanted to steal the guy's gun. Saving the kids wasn't even in my mind as a reason for doing the action. If that is the case, I'm still a piece of ****. The accidental fact that my actions did good play no role in altering how much of a piece of **** I am.

Ergo, his reason for the action is of paramount importance.

The motive doesn't matter. The end result matters.

If you want to apply motive to things, then we can say Vick gave money to animal charities and donated his time just to placate his critics so he could get back into the league.

If you look at why somebody does something and discount all the good they do if they don't have 100% altruistic motives, then you will never accept any good that is done in the world.

Most people give money to charity for the tax break.

Does that negate the good that is done with that money?
 
Back
Top Bottom