• 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
And there's nothing Vick can do to make racists forgive him, but he didn't need the promise of their forgiveness to know that apologizing for his wrongs and changing his outlook on life was the right thing to do.

Sterling knows that no amount of apologizing, nor anything else will change a damn thing. There's a lesson to be learned from that, but I doubt the PC hand wringers will figure it out.
 
And there's nothing Vick can do to make racists forgive him, but he didn't need the promise of their forgiveness to know that apologizing for his wrongs and changing his outlook on life was the right thing to do.

Oh cut the "racist" bull****. I detest Vick for what he did to dogs, which was cruel, sick and inhuman. He was my favorite player when he played for Atlanta. The color of his skin is NOT relevant. How in the hell did Vick's skin color come into this?

Vick isn't sorry he killed dogs. He's sorry he got caught.
 
And there's nothing Vick can do to make racists forgive him, but he didn't need the promise of their forgiveness to know that apologizing for his wrongs and changing his outlook on life was the right thing to do.

you think racism is why Vick was reviled by millions?
 
Sterling. Racism is far more damaging to society than dog fighting. It's not even close.

One of the major problems we have in this country right now is that there are too many idiots who care more about animals than people.

(Before some braindead moron tries to pretend that I'm saying it's OK to kill dogs and that Vick didn't deserve any punishment, I'm not. I'm saying racism is a lot ****ing worse than killing dogs. If you disagree, then feel free to explain exactly why you think racism is better than dog killing).

I often find it hilarious that some people will rail on and on about Vick's actions while they eat meat every night. Now that is some retarded ass hypocricy right there.

What Vick did is the moral equivalent of having a beef farm. He killed animals, often very cruelly, for profit. How is that different than what happened to a Big Mac?

I agree. They need to go down to a slaughter house sometimes and see real animal cruelty. But they get a pass because they are the "job creators"
 
And there's nothing Vick can do to make racists forgive him, but he didn't need the promise of their forgiveness to know that apologizing for his wrongs and changing his outlook on life was the right thing to do.
Wait...you think people that dont forgive Vick wont do so because they are 'racist'?
 
Humans by nature eat meat, as do many other animals. A beef farm isn't illegal. Dog fighting is. To compare the torture of dogs with beef farming is ridiculous.

Ah, so if dog fighting was legal, you'd have no problem with Vick? Your moral beliefs are based entirely on legality, and nothing else?

If not, then why the **** would you even pretend this is a rebuttal?

Society wasn't damaged because an old man didn't want his young girlfriend to take selfies with a black man who has HIV. Can you be any more dramatic?

Society is damaged when an old man in power is a racist. Can you be any more oblivious?

Society was more damaged by young kids seeing a convicted animal abuser come back to a hero's welcome in the NFL than it was by Donald Sterling.

think_of_the_children.jpg


You do realize that calling me dramatic and then following that accusation with what amounts to the above is what those of us with fancy book-learnin' call "ironic", right?

Especially when you consider the fact that kids were not involved at all (in other words, bringing kids into it is simply retarded), Vick did NOT receive a hero's welcome (thus claiming he did is retarded), thus you simply made up a bunch of retarded melodramatic nonsense because, presumably, an intelligent rebuttal was something far beyond your capablities.

Good stuff, right there. +1000 for not even trying.
 
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?

Odd comparison.
What's the difference between oranges and apples? :doh
 
Vick was actually convicted of his crimes in a court of law and served time in prison if I'm not mistaken.

So theoretically he paid a rather large debt to society and supposedly deserves another chance. Right?

He missed out on a few years of his career as well. Fairly substantial loss of income.

Not saying he isn't a scum bag - but he didn't "get off scott-free" now did he?
 
Saint Michael has turned his life around and has been apologetic for many years. He has become an excellent human being and a model citizen.

Sterling has doubled down on his vile arrogance and publicly talks **** on Magic Johnson after being exposed as a bitter racist.

Everyone has a dark side. It's our willingness to conquer and become better people that defines us. Vick has demonstrated that. Sterling refuses to.
FYI, Vick is with the Jets so he's no longer with the Eagles, you can stop rooting for him now, Philly. :2razz:
 
Last edited:
I dont think its ever a good idea to look two closely at two reeking piles of manure to judge which is the foulest.
 
Here's my issue with this Tucker.

On a macro level, if you're asking me what's "worse" for society....fighting dogs or racism, I'd say racism.

That's different than asking on a micro level who is "worse"...someone who killed some dogs or someone who said racist comments.

I think, in terms of damage to society, racism is far more damaging than rape is. The political and societal ramifications of racism and how it can play into so many things makes it something far more damaging to me. On a MACRO level, I'd say racism is "more damaging" to society than rape.

But if you asked me "Who's 'worse', a guy who raped a woman or a guy who spits at black people" I'm going to say the rapist 100 times out of a 100.

That's because the CONCEPT of Racism is more damaging, but the question isn't about the concept...it's about the individual people and their individual actions.

First, I'd argue rape is more damaging to society than racism, because rape is often sexism and violence combined. Macro, micro, no difference. A society that condones rape is worse than one that condones racism. It's a country mile in the difference between those two societies, IMO. The one that condones racism is going to be very bad, the one that condones rape is going to be extremely evil.

I honestly don't think a valid argument can be presented that can support a claim that racism is worse than rape even on a macro level when one actually looks at what condoning both would achieve.

On a macro level, a society that condones dog fighting is going to be, for all intents and purposes, a society almost identical to the one we currently live in.

Furthermore, I contend that the cruelty of dog fighting is pretty much identical to the cruelty seen in most meat farms. The difference is that people LIKE dogs.

People think Vick is "disgusting" for what essentially amounts to having a different opinion on the value of dogs. He basically saw them the same way they see a pig, or a cow, or a chicken. He had the same mentality toward dogs that a farmer has towards cows.

People don't tend to think Bob Evans is a serial killer (assuming he was a real person at some point), despite the millions of pig deaths on his hands. Despite the massive amounts of cruelty that goes on on mega farms each year. Far worse cruelty than what Vick did to some dogs. That is an undeniable fact. Objectively, millions and millions of animals suffer each year as part of the meat industry while a dozen or so, maybe 100 tops, suffered as part of Vick's criminal activities.

So what's the difference, really? Ultimately the difference is that people love dogs and bacon. They love dogs, so they don't want dogs to be hurt. They love bacon, so **** the pig. Purely arbitrary reasons, in other words.

My contention is that it is pure hypocrisy to pretend that Vick is worse than Sterling if you eat meat. If you eat meat, you ARE Vick, regardless of any self-delusions you might entertain about it being OK to contribute to the death a cruelty of certain animals while it's evil to do the same for others. You are just as responsible for animal death and cruelty for personal gain as he is.

Vegans, even non-vegan vegetarians, can argue that Vick is worse than Sterling without being hypocrites. But they are the only ones who can do it. They are still wrong, IMO, but at least they aren't hypocrites.

I'm not a vegan, nor am I a hypocrite on this issue. If I think that Vick is worse than Sterling, then I think I'm worse than sterling.

And lets get right down to the nitty gritty. Vick was guilty of having an opinion of dogs which is akin to the opinion that most people have of pigs, or cows, or mice, or insects. Pick a person, and there is some animal out there for which they hold an opinion akin to vick's about dogs. Few people get outraged by a kid holding a magnifying glass up to an ant hill, but that is STILL animal cruelty (contrary to popular ignorance, insects are animals.)

Whereas Sterling was and is guilty of having an opinion about black people that is akin to the opinion most people have of criminals (you shouldn't associate with "those" people). He also is in a position of power, and sadly, he has more free speech than most people (due to supreme court rulings that money = speech).

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think people are bad for having arbitrary groupings about which animals warrant added protection or don't warrant such added protection. Most of us do it to some degree. Ultimately with Vick, we're just talking about a difference of opinion about where to draw the entirely arbitrary line.

With Sterling, however, we're talking about an internal belief he has that is simply vile. He believes that some people are inferior based on an arbitrary trait. That belief is inherently vile, IMO. It's not a difference of opinion on where to draw an arbitrary line, it's a decision to draw an arbitrary line despite the fact that no such line should ever exist.

Here's the thing. Vick deserved to be prosecuted. His sentence was ludicrous, and people's idiotic hatred of him is hypocritical at BEST, and utterly retarded at worst, but I can support making dog fighting illegal and punishing those who do it. I also would like to see the unnecessary cruelty that occurs in farming become illegal and be prosecuted equally to dog fighting.

What Sterling did should NEVER be illegal. It's vile, disgusting, and he's a terrible person for holding those beliefs, but it's his right to be a ****ty person.

I don't need every action I feel to be vile and damaging to society to be illegal. I also don't have to think something has to damage society in order for me to think it should be illegal.

I do take those factors into account when I decide to pass judgement on a person for their actions, though. For example, I think rich people who complain about their taxes going toward helping the poor are much worse people than poor people who steal. What they are doing is more disgusting and indefensible than what the poor person is doing.

And I think that what Sterling did is more disgusting and indefensible than what Vick did. For ****'s sake, there are idiots here that are basically trying to pretend that Vick did not face consequences and faced a "hero's welcome" from the NFL after he committed his crimes. HE served two years in prison, for ****'s sake. HE was suspended indefinitely and then reinstated after demonstrating to the commish that he had reformed.

Sterling has a history of discriminatory practices. He's a piece of ****, through and through. And he's never faced any consequences for his scumbaggery. Even getting banned form the NBA is going to make him damn near a billion dollars.

So yeah, Sterling is worse. Much worse. The fact that I'm one of the few who seems to recognize it is sad to me.
 
What exactly did Sterling do to society?

He promoted the idea of segregation based on race which, even on a small level, is horrible for society.

Before you ask ME that question, though, you should ask yourself what Vick did to society. The honest answer is not a goddamned thing. But he got two years. He got a lot of outrage spewed at him, by hypocrites who don't even hesitate to eat meat, no less.

Racism, no matter how it gets promoted, damages society. Sterling promoted racism. He was racist. Thus he is worse than Vick who simply drew an arbitrarily line in a different place than where most people draw it.
 
Not every racist douchebag needs conservatives to defend him. The fact that they it so much is an indication to me that either A. they are so insecure about their own beliefs enough that they want to believe all accusations of racism, no matter how valid, are false because if they aren't false, it's possible that some of their own beliefs are in fact racist, which they don't want to be the case or B. They want to be racist without having to be called a racist (racists are very sensitive people)
 
I dont think its ever a good idea to look two closely at two reeking piles of manure to judge which is the foulest.

Except one pile might have the capacity to cause disease, so wouldn't you want to know which pile to use as fertilizer and which to destroy as pestilence?
 
I'm having trouble wrapping my thoughts around what was actually that RACIST about Sterling's comments. Maybe I missed some of the ones that caught everyone's attention.

Would someone please point out the worst offences?
 
Making dumb comments vs killing for pleasure. Not sure why anyone would give Vick a pass.
 
Ah, so if dog fighting was legal, you'd have no problem with Vick? Your moral beliefs are based entirely on legality, and nothing else?

If not, then why the **** would you even pretend this is a rebuttal?



Society is damaged when an old man in power is a racist. Can you be any more oblivious?



think_of_the_children.jpg


You do realize that calling me dramatic and then following that accusation with what amounts to the above is what those of us with fancy book-learnin' call "ironic", right?

Especially when you consider the fact that kids were not involved at all (in other words, bringing kids into it is simply retarded), Vick did NOT receive a hero's welcome (thus claiming he did is retarded), thus you simply made up a bunch of retarded melodramatic nonsense because, presumably, an intelligent rebuttal was something far beyond your capablities.

Good stuff, right there. +1000 for not even trying.

Retarded? Nice to know you socialists hate special needs people.

Go on defending Vick. Nice to know you defend animal abusers. Enough said.
 
Society is damaged when an old man in power is a racist. .

and it is also damaged when people are so motivated by their fear of being considered racist that they rush in to defend a sadistic animal killer because he is black.

Instead of trying to combat racism by creating enormous double standards, why not use the same standards to judge all people, thus truly taking a stand against racism rather than simply turning it around?
 
He promoted the idea of segregation based on race which, even on a small level, is horrible for society.

Before you ask ME that question, though, you should ask yourself what Vick did to society. The honest answer is not a goddamned thing. But he got two years. He got a lot of outrage spewed at him, by hypocrites who don't even hesitate to eat meat, no less.

Racism, no matter how it gets promoted, damages society. Sterling promoted racism. He was racist. Thus he is worse than Vick who simply drew an arbitrarily line in a different place than where most people draw it.
Vick committed actual crimes. Thats the equivalent question of "what does a murderer do to society". Sterling didnt 'promote' racism...he exposed himself as having racist beliefs in a private conversation with his cuckolding girlfriend. As has been pointed out...he is 'such' a racist that the NAACP was about to give him a lifetime achievement award for the numerous programs he has put in place and/or funded specifically targetting minority communities.
 
First, I'd argue rape is more damaging to society than racism, because rape is often sexism and violence combined. Macro, micro, no difference. A society that condones rape is worse than one that condones racism. It's a country mile in the difference between those two societies, IMO. The one that condones racism is going to be very bad, the one that condones rape is going to be extremely evil.

I honestly don't think a valid argument can be presented that can support a claim that racism is worse than rape even on a macro level when one actually looks at what condoning both would achieve.

The confusion you have towards my suggestion may come because either:

1. You're moving the goal posts
2. You were horribly unclear in your original post

Your first post didn't suggest or speak, at all, about which is more damaging to society if it's CONDONED by society. You simply spoke to which is more damaging to society, seemingly in the context of reality, today.

That's why I'd say Racism is more damaging to society as a whole, today, than rape is. While there is some ambiguity regarding what is/isn't rape at times, I'd argue that ambiguity is far less than comes with Racism. When it comes to rape, that issue doesn't permeate into the realm of politics...everywhere from the on going back and forth about Obama, to issues of affirmative actions or discriminations laws, to issues with black conservatives, on and on. There have been undoubtably horrible situations involving rape before, but I can't remember any gaining the attention and splitting the public as much as the Zimmerman/Trayvon case did due to the accusations of racism. With Rape, there's an actual system in place to put forward institutionalized penalties for it along with the societal ones...while by and large, for racism, there is no such recourse. Not to mention, racism itself can often lend itself to violence as well as we've seen numerous times.

I'd agree, in terms of which would be more damaging if society CONDONED it...I'd go the other way. But talking about the reality of today and within our own society, racism as a concept today does more harm to society as a whole today than rape as a concept imho.

However, on an individual level, rape is far more abhorrent to me than someone's racism.

To your point in terms of Vick and Sterling and dogs / meat...I can understand it. I can't even say I necessarily disagree with it. At the same time, I'll happily take the notion of "hypocrite" on this one. Much like I'd happily take the title of hypocrite for saying that people should be the better man when being insulted and not punch people, but if a guy called my wife a bitch I'd clock him in the jaw. I recognize there are double standards in life that we all tend to hold to SOME degree. For example, people may be far more forgiving of an action of a family member than a friend, and of a friend than a stranger. All for an arbitrary reasons, as ultimately all of those individuals are simply other humans.

Domesticated companion animals such as dogs and cats that have been bread into that role over the centuries pull a different string on my emotions than a Cow or a Fish; just like my sister pulls a different string than the chick sitting a few cubes back from me at the office. Doing something for the purpose of entertainment as opposed to something relatively essential to life (even if it may not be the only way to get that essential notion) pulls my strings just a little differently. And I don't really feel bad for that fact. I'll take the hypocrite label in that case.

I'm not one to continue to villify Vick, and I'll admit my dislike of him stems from his College days at Tech and is as much on a typical sports level as any kind of personal level. That said, from a football stand point my issue with his crime was FAR less to do with Dogs; it was to do with gambling. As you know as a sports fan, gambling issues throw a HUGE wrench in things and illegal gambling is viewed generally even worse. Regardless of his jail time, I felt the gambling charges were enough to legitimately have a chance to cause a significant suspension. The notion that he was given a hero's welcome though is laughable, I agree. Jail time, suspension, repeated pleading to the comish, leading most teams to want nothing to do with him until the eagles finally grabbed him as a 3rd stringer end of the bench type guy.
 
Is any comparison likely to be truly meaningful?

Animal cruelty vs racism. How ****ing nebulous can you get?
 
Some crime is so serious that it merits a permanent reduction in job opportunity and earning power. The crime Vick committed fits that bill.

Physical injury generally causes psychological injury as well, especially if maiming and killing are involved. That makes it worse than psychological injury alone. Therefore Vick's crime was worse that what Sterling did, which, bad as it was, inflicted only psychological damage, and was not even legally criminal.

Is there any business besides professional sport where Vick would not have been banned for life? No company I ever worked for (mostly insurance and manufacturing) would have kept my a day past the day I was arrested. Can anyone think of an exception other than pro sport? The legal profession is notorious for readmitting disbarred members, but would even lawyers be so lenient with someone convicted of dogfighting?

Sterling deserves a lifetime ban from all professional association with sport franchises. Vick's worse behavior merits the permanent reduction in job opportunity and earning potential that an identical ban would produce, and it is deplorable that he got off with anything less.
 
Vick's worse behavior merits the permanent reduction in job opportunity and earning potential that an identical ban would produce, and it is deplorable that he got off with anything less.

Wait....Vick was caught, charges were pressed, he was found guilty and sentenced to prison, and he served his time. He has a permanent criminal record.

What more do you want? What jobs would you relegate him to after having served his time in prison?

Also - keep in mind that we humans slaughter ca-gillions of animals a year for food, clothing, and research.

I'm not saying Vick isn't a skeezy human being and that he deserves to be completely forgiven for his past behavior.

But he served time in prison, and was hired by a football team after all that to play for them.
That's not his fault. That's just capitalism.
 
Wait....Vick was caught, charges were pressed, he was found guilty and sentenced to prison, and he served his time. He has a permanent criminal record.
I admit I haven't read the whole thread, but I would have thought this was already covered.


What more do you want?
Addressed in my reply #48, but I don't mind repeating: I want him to get the same treatment you and me would have gotten if we had been convicted of a violent crime like dogfighting.


What jobs would you relegate him to after having served his time in prison?
The same kind of job you and me would be relegated to if we had been convicted of a violent crime like dogfighting.


Also - keep in mind that we humans slaughter ca-gillions of animals a year for food, clothing, and research.
That is a corrupt analogy for several reasons. To take one, in the examples you mention animals are killed to promote human life whereas the animals used in dogfighting are killed solely for the depraved pleasure of watching them suffer and die.


I'm not saying Vick isn't a skeezy human being and that he deserves to be completely forgiven for his past behavior.
Yeah, right- you deserves to have people like you wagging their fingers and muttering "tut tut, what a bad man you are!"


But he served time in prison, and was hired by a football team after all that to play for them. That's not his fault. That's just capitalism.
This debate has nothing to do with the economic system.
 
Back
Top Bottom