Poll: Dog Torture vs. Rapist

[emeraldrafael]

I dont have a problem with Vick on the cover, just like I dont with kobe (though I dont play NBA games, so its not like I would care. Or really NFL games, but I watched the season, and vick was amazing).

Besides, didnt Kobe settle out of court and the girl;s family received some money?

 

[Jaranja]

I'd trust the dog kicker more than the rapist I guess

I don't see why you'd have to choose. I wouldn't trust either of them at all. Not even a smidgen.

 

[Fappy]

I voted no simply because EA would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did it. From a marketing standpoint its an incredibly stupid decision. Does he have the right to appear on the cover? Honestly this is a free country and as long as his appearance is not somehow promoting animal abuse I couldn't give a shit.

In response to the topic, as far as I understand Kobe Bryant was never convicted. If he was however I would not expect him to appear on the cover of a game for very much the same reason as Vick.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I've listened to more than just "OMG HE FOUGHT DOGS" and I have to say he's really changed. If anyone actually gave a rats ass about what he has said since, he's changed a lot as a person. He was raised in a house, town, and environment where that's what dogs were for. Sure, he could have saw how different his area was from the rest of America, but he's a football player, not smart. He has since tried to make amends, and never will be able to because nobody believes in forgiveness, no matter how much he does.

Honestly, he was on the cover in '04, and I don't think that anyone should be on it more than once.

As for Kobe... yeah, I have issues with him too. His ass should have been jailed, but was rich enough to just buy off the poor girl.

At least one really shows honest signs of repentance.

 

[dmase]

Because Kobe isn't guilty... *sigh* technically. He wasn't convicted and was past the public's immediate memory. Vick was in jail and dealing with the whole probation and getting back into the NFL thing, its still "fresh"

There is also the idiocy that vick is setting up gambling dog fighting rings to make money when he is payed in the millions. I think rape is worse than dog fighting but its much easier to prove a dog fighting ring and a lot less easy to rationalize raising money illegally despite being paid top dollar to play football.

 

[TheTim]

Michael Vick did a horrible thing and got off easy, but he did his time with good behavior.
He'll never get my support again, but he did a great job in the '10 season and he displayed great sportsmanship so he should be in the running, just not win.

 

[Risingblade]

I'd trust the dog kicker more than the rapist I guess

I don't see why you'd have to choose. I wouldn't trust either of them at all. Not even a smidgen.

Just saying rape is worse than the dog thing, of course I wouldn't trust either of them

 

[bob1052]

He is a candidate to be in a photo used to sell a game about football because of his history in football.

The fact that he has had a criminal past is completely irrelevant to that.

And anyone who thinks that it falls to them to make sure he gets more punishment when he has already been convicted and served his punishment from the proper authority is an idiot.


Due to PR reasons he probably won't be showing up anyway, but all these people crying about his past really need to shut up.

 

[MellowFellow]

None of those things should have any bearing AT ALL on his status as a sports player. Terrible people make it to the covers of these games, but it's not the content of their character that matters, it's their sports ability.

Yes, this is true, but it *shouldn't* be true. That's why people are mad in the first place. This poll is essentially saying "Should only sports ability be taken into account, or should other aspects of people have a part too?". Personally i think it *shouldn't* be just sports ability that is taken into account.

But the game is just a sports game, why should a player's ethical issues have any bearing on a game that doesn't have anything to with anything but football. I honestly don't care who is on the cover, but I see know reason why Vick shouldn't have a chance of being on the cover, he had a great season. Having great season should be all that matters for getting on the cover of a SPORTS game.

I've listened to more than just "OMG HE FOUGHT DOGS" and I have to say he's really changed. If anyone actually gave a rats ass about what he has said since, he's changed a lot as a person. He was raised in a house, town, and environment where that's what dogs were for. Sure, he could have saw how different his area was from the rest of America, but he's a football player, not smart. He has since tried to make amends, and never will be able to because nobody believes in forgiveness, no matter how much he does.

Honestly, he was on the cover in '04, and I don't think that anyone should be on it more than once.

As for Kobe... yeah, I have issues with him too. His ass should have been jailed, but was rich enough to just buy off the poor girl.

At least one really shows honest signs of repentance.

He is even working with the humane society to help stop dogfighting, so kudos to him. I have typed that sentenced a bunch of times today I think, and not many people seem to know what he is doing and just assume all he does is play football again.

I won't get into the Kobe thing, I don't like him.
1. Because he is a whiny ***** who calls foul everytime.
2. I'm a blazer fan.

 

[bob1052]

Kobe was not found guilty. That means he should be assumed to be not guilty under our legal system. The case itself was one of questionable consent, a topic that was recently done to death with many escapists suggesting that actions such as Kobe's were quite above board.

Vick on the other hand is a convicted animal abuser. Animal abuse has been shown to have strong links to a willingness to harm other humans.

Not the same thing.

Wait.

Kobe was not found guilty. That means he should be assumed to be not guilty under our legal system

Vick on the other hand is a convicted animal abuser

Why do you follow the legal system when dealing with assumed non-guilt but you don't follow it when dealing with someone who is convicted and served their punishment.

 

[mireko]

Worst fighting game ever.

You should just wait for Super Dog Torture vs. Rapist Turbo HD Remix.

 

[thecoreyhlltt]

Wait, was Kobe ever convicted of rape? I could've sworn he wasn't. If he wasn't, these cases are not comparable.

And Vick I think Vick should be up for the cover, as I said in that other thread that was removed from the site.

Exactly he was accused but wasn't convicted. Innocent until proven guilty, so you can't say that he's a rapist. Anything past that is just your personal opinion on the guy and speculation.

As to Vick, well I just don't really care. I don't care about the NFL or video games based on it. Either way its a football game not Nintendogs, so his personal life isn't really relevant.

now that'd be something to get miffed about.

 

[spartan231490]

So clearly the hot button issue is Michael Vick's possible cover appearance on NFL '11. And obviously, the question of should he be has been done to death so I'm here to ask a different question: How can people be so opposed to Michael Vick's possible cover when, and apologies here I do not intend to sound heartless, they were just dogs? I have 2 dogs and love them very much and the thought of harming them is completely abhorrent to me.

But here is the kicker, how is there so much opposition here? Where were you all when Kobe Bryant raped a girl and then appeared on three games covers (NBA '07, '09, and 2K10).

Is the abuse of innocent dogs really that much worse then the abuse of an innocent woman? Or am I missing something?

And no "other" option in the poll, no pussyfooting around with "yes, but with reservations" or some other bs.

EDIT: I figured I would put this here before it gets out of hand.

Bryant's case got dropped because she didn't want to go and testify. But he was quoted as saying "Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual," Bryant's statement continued, "I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/02/MNG6E8IB861.DTL

Bryant was never convicted, and therefore in the eyes of the law it never happened. Vick was convicted, therefore they can give him as much shit as they want.
I don't think he should be on the cover, he's a criminal and not a role mode.

 

[zehydra]

None of those things should have any bearing AT ALL on his status as a sports player. Terrible people make it to the covers of these games, but it's not the content of their character that matters, it's their sports ability.

Yes, this is true, but it *shouldn't* be true. That's why people are mad in the first place. This poll is essentially saying "Should only sports ability be taken into account, or should other aspects of people have a part too?". Personally i think it *shouldn't* be just sports ability that is taken into account.

Yes, sports should only be taken into account. It isn't a glorification of the person, it's a glorification of the player.

 

[zehydra]

None of those things should have any bearing AT ALL on his status as a sports player. Terrible people make it to the covers of these games, but it's not the content of their character that matters, it's their sports ability.

That's a slippery slope. If you're going to have someone be publicly glorified, what are they allowed to get away with before it's a problem to publicly glorify them? (And in all seriousness, all sports players exist to do is earn and display public glorification). It also speaks to an amount of hypocrisy. Anyone who isn't an enormously popular (insert occupation here) star who commits atrocities like that can expect to be ostracized from the society they were in so much so that they may have to move and/or change their name, because that is the social punishment for that sort of thing. People like Vick and Bryant, and various other names that shall not be mentioned get half-hearted outrage for a couple years TOPS and then get to continue their lives as if they never did any such thing. There is a severe iniquity there. Rapists are branded as such for the rest of their lives, and everything from the jobs they can apply for to the houses they are allowed to live in is affected. Not sure what's going on for people who torture animals in that way, but they certainly won't get pleasant greetings from their neighbors once that gets out.

Back to my first point, I think maybe some kid somewhere is going to figure out that if you become publicly glorified enough, you can get away with a lot of shit you couldn't normally... And that I find somewhat problematic.

It's public glorification of the player, of his athletic ability. You can't judge who's the better football player by his personal life. This is no more "public glorification" than people posting fan videos of Michael Vick on youtube, or Vick starring in ads before a football game. Should those be taken down too because "Someone" might look up to him then?

 

[chowderface]

I don't think anyone who commits a crime on the scale of animal abuse, rape, murder, what have you, should get on the cover of a game or otherwise receive any sort of positive attention at all unless they're demonstrably remorseful for what they've done (so, not Vick). But this is the first I've heard that EA chooses who ends up on the cover by public poll. So for me at least, it's less a question of "these are horrible people, what is EA doing putting them on their games" and more "these are horrible people, what is THE PUBLIC AT LARGE even thinking to begin with?"

 

[conflictofinterests]

None of those things should have any bearing AT ALL on his status as a sports player. Terrible people make it to the covers of these games, but it's not the content of their character that matters, it's their sports ability.

That's a slippery slope. If you're going to have someone be publicly glorified, what are they allowed to get away with before it's a problem to publicly glorify them? (And in all seriousness, all sports players exist to do is earn and display public glorification). It also speaks to an amount of hypocrisy. Anyone who isn't an enormously popular (insert occupation here) star who commits atrocities like that can expect to be ostracized from the society they were in so much so that they may have to move and/or change their name, because that is the social punishment for that sort of thing. People like Vick and Bryant, and various other names that shall not be mentioned get half-hearted outrage for a couple years TOPS and then get to continue their lives as if they never did any such thing. There is a severe iniquity there. Rapists are branded as such for the rest of their lives, and everything from the jobs they can apply for to the houses they are allowed to live in is affected. Not sure what's going on for people who torture animals in that way, but they certainly won't get pleasant greetings from their neighbors once that gets out.

Back to my first point, I think maybe some kid somewhere is going to figure out that if you become publicly glorified enough, you can get away with a lot of shit you couldn't normally... And that I find somewhat problematic.

It's public glorification of the player, of his athletic ability. You can't judge who's the better football player by his personal life. This is no more "public glorification" than people posting fan videos of Michael Vick on youtube, or Vick starring in ads before a football game. Should those be taken down too because "Someone" might look up to him then?

For an example

If I were to tell you that Hitler was a good politician because he was able to get Germany running efficiently and instill hope and pride into the people of the country, you would almost certainly go off and say that I am a Nazi sympathizer and that I should burn in hell for agreeing with all the atrocious things that man orchestrated.

The fact of the matter is that these people are not Hitler, however the same principal most would apply to me in the aforementioned instance should apply to these athletes. Yeah, they are great athletes. It doesn't change the fact that they are terrible people and should face the repercussions of their actions.