Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:45 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Irn-Bru wrote:Well, Kaz might think Stallworth, Little, Ray Lewis (sorry CLL
) shouldn't be allowed back in the league, either. In that case he could at least be consistent. . . .but that wouldn't make him right.
What do you mean by "right?" I'm stating my opinion, are you arguing that I'm wrong, it's not my opinion? I don't say anyone else isn't entitled to a different opinion. I didn't say Vick doesn't have a "right" to play in the NFL. I'm confused by your statement.
As for Little and Stallworth, I clarified above that I don't see it as the same and I cannot say without more knowledge if I would let them in or not. Lewis I would definitely not let in.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:47 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Chris Luva Luva wrote:DEHog wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Would you have that opinion for all crimes?
Apples to Oranges.
What about you Kazoo...any thoughts on Stallworth and Little??
Dogs > Humans, backwards world.
I see, so you're making assumptions about my opinions and the reasons I hold them, and do it wrong, and then judge me based on your assumption of my views? I hadn't even commented on Stallworth or Little when your wrote this. Mirror, dude, buy a mirror.
Every argument I made on the dogs was about the depravity of the person doing it. There is in fact no point where I compare churches, children or dogs. So your evaluation of the victims protected is just crap made up in your mind. Nice to know how anti-judging you are though.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:47 pm
by ChocolateMilk
KazooSkinsFan wrote:DEHog wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Would you have that opinion for all crimes?
Apples to Oranges.
What about you Kazoo...any thoughts on Stallworth and Little??
Well, in the cases I raised, dog fighting, fire bombing, child molesting, the crime itself was repeated (I intentionally used plurals) and planned. In the DUIs while it was reckless they didn't set out to kill. So to me, it's more plausible they could more quickly realize the horrible crime they committed. It's the extreme heinousness of the former cases that makes it impossible to believe anyone could have dramatically changed in 18 months.
However, they were extremely reckless and lives were actually lost. I think also that our tolerance for that sort of thing needs to go down. In the old days, drinking and driving was considered more of a slap on the wrist crime and not dealt with so seriously. With the increasing traffic and awareness of the reality that people die and it's serious to do, I have a harder and harder time accepting that it wasn't so reckless the difference fades.
So no way to me it would be automatic the manslaughter would get a pass. But it would be plausible in 18 months whereas dog fighting, child molesting or firebombing churches would be impossible.
wait so tell me if i'm wrong here, but you're saying that they shouldnt be so strict on people who drink and drive? is that really what you are saying?
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:50 pm
by Deadskins
ChocolateMilk wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:DEHog wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Would you have that opinion for all crimes?
Apples to Oranges.
What about you Kazoo...any thoughts on Stallworth and Little??
Well, in the cases I raised, dog fighting, fire bombing, child molesting, the crime itself was repeated (I intentionally used plurals) and planned. In the DUIs while it was reckless they didn't set out to kill. So to me, it's more plausible they could more quickly realize the horrible crime they committed. It's the extreme heinousness of the former cases that makes it impossible to believe anyone could have dramatically changed in 18 months.
However, they were extremely reckless and lives were actually lost. I think also that our tolerance for that sort of thing needs to go down. In the old days, drinking and driving was considered more of a slap on the wrist crime and not dealt with so seriously. With the increasing traffic and awareness of the reality that people die and it's serious to do, I have a harder and harder time accepting that it wasn't so reckless the difference fades.
So no way to me it would be automatic the manslaughter would get a pass. But it would be plausible in 18 months whereas dog fighting, child molesting or firebombing churches would be impossible.
wait so tell me if i'm wrong here, but you're saying that they shouldnt be so strict on people who drink and drive? is that really what you are saying?
Tolerence going down, means more strict, not less.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:52 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
ChocolateMilk wrote:wait so tell me if i'm wrong here, but you're saying that they shouldnt be so strict on people who drink and drive? is that really what you are saying?
I'm not clear what you're asking me that I didn't already specifically address. If you read my explanation, there isn't actually a yes or no answer to this question.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:54 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Deadskins wrote:Tolerence going down, means more strict, not less.
Correct! What I said and what I meant. I said our tolerance for drunk driving is and should be going down. While it wasn't done with the direct intention of causing harm, it's so reckless that it is increasingly inescapable what the consequence of the choice is and our tolerance for it should be going down.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:10 pm
by Chris Luva Luva
KazooSkinsFan wrote:I see, so you're making assumptions about my opinions and the reasons I hold them, and do it wrong, and then judge me based on your assumption of my views?
Yes.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:27 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Chris Luva Luva wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:I see, so you're making assumptions about my opinions and the reasons I hold them, and do it wrong, and then judge me based on your assumption of my views?
Yes.
Just checking
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:30 pm
by ChocolateMilk
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:I see, so you're making assumptions about my opinions and the reasons I hold them, and do it wrong, and then judge me based on your assumption of my views?
Yes.
Just checking
my bad i completely read that the wrong way man.. i broke my collar bone and the Doc gave me vicodin so i'm a little out of it. Sorry..
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:31 pm
by DEHog
KazooSkinsFan wrote:DEHog wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Would you have that opinion for all crimes?
Apples to Oranges.
What about you Kazoo...any thoughts on Stallworth and Little??
Well, in the cases I raised, dog fighting, fire bombing, child molesting, the crime itself was repeated (I intentionally used plurals) and planned. In the DUIs while it was reckless they didn't set out to kill. So to me, it's more plausible they could more quickly realize the horrible crime they committed. It's the extreme heinousness of the former cases that makes it impossible to believe anyone could have dramatically changed in 18 months.
However, they were extremely reckless and lives were actually lost. I think also that our tolerance for that sort of thing needs to go down. In the old days, drinking and driving was considered more of a slap on the wrist crime and not dealt with so seriously. With the increasing traffic and awareness of the reality that people die and it's serious to do, I have a harder and harder time accepting that it wasn't so reckless the difference fades.
So no way to me it would be automatic the manslaughter would get a pass. But it would be plausible in 18 months whereas dog fighting, child molesting or firebombing churches would be impossible.
But in Little’s case he had a previous DUI...so I guess he didn't realize his crime and it resulted in a loss of life.
I'll bet if you ask Vick…he'd tell you he knew drinking and driving was wrong... but he didn't think that dog fighting was so bad.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:19 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
DEHog wrote:But in Little’s case he had a previous DUI...so I guess he didn't realize his crime and it resulted in a loss of life.
I don't know that much about the cases other then they were both manslaughter, but I agree that would make it even more difficult to think of as meaningfully different from those who intentionally set out to cause harm. As I said anyway EVERYONE is aware of the dangers of drinking and driving and it's not a wink-wink nudge-nudge crime. And yes, that should impact their ability to represent a private concern. Still, in terms of their own depravity I have a hard time comparing it to the intent people who do dog fighting, child molestation or bomb churches to actually cause harm to others.
DEHog wrote:I'll bet if you ask Vick…he'd tell you he knew drinking and driving was wrong... but he didn't think that dog fighting was so bad.
OK, but I don't get what your point is
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:20 pm
by Countertrey
I'll bet if you ask Vick…he'd tell you he knew drinking and driving was wrong... but he didn't think that dog fighting was so bad.
The months that Vick spent trying to deny responsibility and to shift blame to others does not match up with the second part of your postulation...
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:24 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Countertrey wrote:I'll bet if you ask Vick…he'd tell you he knew drinking and driving was wrong... but he didn't think that dog fighting was so bad.
The months that Vick spent trying to deny responsibility and to shift blame to others does not match up with the second part of your postulation...
Logically he could just understand that others think that without thinking it himself. I have no point in this.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:37 pm
by NJ-SKINS-FAN
word on the street is he is in NE on the field trying out
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/ca ... umor-mill/
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:42 pm
by Countertrey
He could be an excellent slot back...
He will never play QB for the Pats.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:54 pm
by NJ-SKINS-FAN
Countertrey wrote:He could be an excellent slot back...
He will never play QB for the Pats.
wildcat right back inthe dolphins face......
i can see that in a second, you know billy is pissed how he was "out coached" that game and would love to 10 fold him....
plus with pat white in MIA, im sure NE would love to one up them over pat white....
i can see him for sure in the back field
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:34 am
by Irn-Bru
Countertrey wrote:He could be an excellent slot back...
He will never play QB for the Pats.
Aren't they in need of a backup? What makes you think Vick wouldn't see the field, were Brady to go down again?
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:12 pm
by DEHog
KazooSkinsFan wrote:DEHog wrote:But in Little’s case he had a previous DUI...so I guess he didn't realize his crime and it resulted in a loss of life.
I don't know that much about the cases other then they were both manslaughter, but I agree that would make it even more difficult to think of as meaningfully different from those who intentionally set out to cause harm. As I said anyway EVERYONE is aware of the dangers of drinking and driving and it's not a wink-wink nudge-nudge crime. And yes, that should impact their ability to represent a private concern. Still, in terms of their own depravity I have a hard time comparing it to the intent people who do dog fighting, child molestation or bomb churches to actually cause harm to others.
DEHog wrote:I'll bet if you ask Vick…he'd tell you he knew drinking and driving was wrong... but he didn't think that dog fighting was so bad.
OK, but I don't get what your point is
I get what your saying and for the most part agree with you my point was I think Vick see drinking and driving as more serious than what he did...prior to being charged of course.