Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Big Picture: "Maddening" (updated w/embed)

In which I say NO to Michael Vick as a Madden 12 cover candidate:

Go HERE to participate in the ESPN cover-vote.


Taylor said...

So, has anyone considered for a second this is Madden NFL? National Football League? Not Madden National Charity League or National Human Rights League or National Good Persons League?

Personally, I think Vic is perfect for the Madden cover. Why? Because it should demonstrate an important fact: Professional athletes are not social paragons or role models or even decent people, they are guys who play football well. They are jocks.

Yet still, America heaps nothing but endless praise on them from High School to College to the Pros and frankly I think its important to at some point say "The NFL is about playing football, and nothing else. If you support it, you're going to be supporting Vic and guys like him." Find your heroes elsewhere. Not giving Vic an honor because of things unrelated to football is only encouraging our illusion that football is about anything but who can play the game the best.

Aaron said...

I agree that Vick is a douche but it's almost pointless to waste our breath complaining that he's still playing or that he'll get on the cover of the anal ripoff 12 (although I wouldn't write off every EA sports game since their Fifa and NHL games are top notch with huge upgrades almost every year. I just ignore him and hope that he'll get a career ending injury soon. Let the people who want to support him support him and just shake your head (although I did take minor offense to calling everyone who supported the Eagles a douchebag in your District 9 post) and move on.

By the way, since you're a Patriots and Red Sox fan you can go suck the biggest, blackest, vainiest cock you can find ;)

antecedentless said...

Here is a wacky conspiracy for you. Consider "Marble cake, also the Game".

Could this be a psudeo-false flag campaign by Anon to get much of the public to denounce Madden?

Ryan said...

wholeheartedly agree, Bob.

BTW, are you going to comment at all on Peter Jackson's decision to shoot "The Hobbit" in 48 fps?

Adam said...

When you argue this passionately about something Bob, it’s hard not to feel for you. I don’t think there’s anything in this video I disagreed with. Vick definitely deserved a harsher sentence. I don’t know how much harsher I would have liked but MANY more years in jail would have been fine by me.

But I wanted to ask is forgiveness completely out of the question for Vick? America is the land of second chances and I can even honestly think that he is remorseful and seriously trying to set his life straight. He has a long way to go before I believe that he’s really turned around but that’s just me. But can we never lay it to rest? Forgiveness is really more of personal thing than anything else. True forgiveness means letting go of the past. We don’t have to lift Vick up as something great ever again (though others may) as forgiveness does not mean freedom from consequences but at some point if he proves he’s earned it isn’t it best for everyone to put it behind us and let everyone, including him, move on? I’m not saying it’s that time yet but someday?

P.S. I got more than twenty hours of play time out of Mario Galaxy 2 without ever having to repeat a mission. If that is the true standard for an expansion pack I have been really missing out this gen.

counterpoint said...

A couple things. As a prologue: I agree that vick should not be on the cover.

First of all, you are a bostonian. A patriot fan, i would assume. Brady wins mvp, and he's not even still in the running for the cover... Pissed are you? I would be.

Second thing, you never mentioned the whole "cultural difference" thing. I know this doesn't act as a justification, not does it provide anybody an exemption from US laws, but I'm not sure its accurate to portray him as "evil." To him, it may very well have been simply "ok" to do such things, based on the way he was raised and the culture in which he grew up. Does that make it right? Of course not. Not any more right than the tribes in africa who perform female circumcision. But evil implies he knew what he was up to, and had similar moral knowledge of it. He may not have.

Thirdly, the main problem as I see it, with the whole vick comeback is not so much that he is allowed to play the game - he is, after all, extremely talented, and as Taylor above pointed out, these people really should only be looked upon as talented people, not role-models. What irritates me is that people call this a "redemption story." That playing well, and staying out of trouble, somehow redeems you, and potentially elevates you to greatness beyond where you started. What about the rest of us? I've never tortured a dog. If I did, and then later felt sorry, would I somehow be a better human than when I started. B.S. Similar to the Tiger Woods stuff - when he wins some Majors next year, they'll all cry how he's redeemed himself. To me, serving your time and being sorry is great, and what I would hope for, but it is no reason to APPLAUD somebody. It should be EXPECTED

KevinCV said...

Bob, God bless you! I'm not even a football fan and even if I was, I wouldn't even give my local pro team (which shall remain nameless) any support, as they're God-awful. I'm also glad you're calling out the Madden game series out for it's monopolizing bullshit, because I've been saying that for YEARS to people I know who play those games, and I only got through to maybe 2 of them. The rest? Well, I just hope they'll enjoy living from meager paycheck to meager paycheck for awhile, given how expensive those Madden games have gotten in recent years... :P

Anyway, back to my point. I'm not a football fan, but when I saw the news reports about Michael Vick getting convicted with those charges, I was sick to my stomach. Anyone who is capable of doing that to animals is one step away from doing the same to a fellow human being, in my opinion. That's also regardless of how people start crying out "He's turning his life around!" It also finally made me wonder why are we even seeing sports figures as role models instead of just talented people who don't really do much of anything else with their lives. I guess the very definition of "role model" has become a little too broad in recent years, and it's kinda pathetic.

Reverend Allan Ironside said...

Good show, Bob. My wife is the avid animal lover between us and I've seen my share of abused animals taken into my home/ Your points at the tail end of the video are absolutely spot on. Bravo.

WilhelmVonHaig said...

Not american, never played Madden or heard of these people, but I still went and voted against Vick.
you ispironed me

Peter said...

Eh.. I already voted for Vick before this episode came out.

Dave said...

Here's the thing that pisses me off. Vick absolutely deserves the scorn that has been heaped upon him.

But where was all this righteous indignation when the same company put mike tyson on the cover of Fight Night 4?

Tyson is a convicted rapist. In my book, that makes him a hell of a lot worse than Vick. In the way that pol pot was worse than franco.

And yet there's been about 100 times more complaints about Vick than there were about Tyson.

It's similar to the situation with the hangover 2 cameo. I get that they don't want Mel Gibson in there because he likely bet his wife....yet the original had Tyson and he did much worse.

What does it say about us if we value Dogs more than women?

Nikolas said...

I would like to point out that no player should be allowed on the cover more than once. That is my opinion anyway.

Vick got the cover in '04.

Peter said...

So when EA releases a new game with minor but significant changes from the previous game, it's the worst thing ever and makes the world worse by it's mere existence. But when Nintendo releases a new Mario game with minor but significant changes from the previous game, it's the best thing ever and promotes peace, love and free bacon all over the world...
I like you Bob, but whenever you mention EA or Nintendo games I pretty much stop paying attention since you praise one and whine about the other for doing what is pretty much the same thing...

I can however agree with you on this Vick person, forgivness should not been given lightly. But it does seem that we are eager to forgive those who entertain us... Chris Brown
Roman Polanski
Mike Tyson
Ben Roethlisberger
Tiger Woods
etc. etc. to name a few

Peter said...

@peter above me: DAMN YOU! STOP STEALING MY NAME!!!!!

Dave said...

@ Peter

That's an entirely different situation. Nintendo takes YEARS to make their functionally identical games. The years make it better for some reason.

oh and can we not lump Tiger in with the rest of those guys? He cheated on his wife. His crimes are limited to having the emotional maturity of a highschool student with the libido to match. That does not equate to rape.

What people arguing against the Madden yearly releases fail to take into account is that if they didn't release yearly, people would be pissed. And if they did adopt the new rosters as DLC strategy, most people wouldn't buy it. Many gamers have an irrational hatred of DLC and refuse to buy it.

I've had arguments with people in the very blog about how other M and nintendo's other sidescrollers should have been 10 dollar downloadable titles. You have no idea the fury of a nintendo fan when I suggest that nintendo should give them stuff for less money.

The environment isn't ready for a downloadable solution and people really do want their Madden every year. Look at the stink over guitar hero. It is quite possibly the most whored franchise not to contain the word party in its title.

In 2010 there were 2 direct sequels. Band Hero and Guitar hero 5. In addition to about 4 spinoffs and trackpacks. And when the series was killed by activision, people complained. Despite the fact that the vastly superior rockband series still exists and is available on the same platforms and is compatible with rockband instruments.eke

sirrosser said...

Well, Bob, I disagree with you about almost everything except for movies and video games. And now, in this case, Michael Vick's qualifications to grace the cover of a game. Sure, he's good at what he does. Sure, that's the point of the game and the video game by extension. However, I can still remember a time when atheletes were supposed to be ROLE MODELS OUTSIDE OF THEIR SPORT! I live just a few miles from Virginia Tech where the Vick boys got their start. Hell, I don't even LIKE animals, for the most part! The point is, this jackass did something that was not only wrong by most folks' moral standards, but also something that was wrong in a legal sense, for no reason other than profit, which he was at the time sure to NOT NEED, as his financial future was secured at that point! If nothing else, the bastard should get an extra 6 months in the slammer for wrecking my commute to work during his VT heyday, but that's beside the point. I may never agree with you again in a political or religious debate, but in this case I think we see eye-to-eye...there are so many athletes more deserving of face-time than Vick.

Peter said...

Well yeah, ofc Tiger isn't on the same level as the rest of the scum. Was mostly mentioned to get a broad selection. While cheating on your wife and breaking up your family isn't a crime it still a awful thing to do. But point taken.

Personally I don't care about neither Mario or Madden. I do enjoy the FIFA series however (actual football :)) My point is that prasing one for doing something that you disapprove another for doing, is hypocritical, no matter how much time the people behind it use on it.
For a outside viewer Mario Galaxy 1 is the same as Mario Galaxy 2, and Madden 10 is the same as 11. But I know that FIFA 10 is not the same as 11, so I think it's wrong to judge games I don't play, because I don't notice the details. And when Bob does this it just ruins my respect for his otherwise good product.

Then again I guess everybody is allowed to hate on one thing without real reason. For me it's techno "music". :)

Hopefully I am making sense here, getting kinda late and I'm not a native english speaker.

The REAL Peter.

Ass kicker said...


I'm a Giants fan so I will unconditionally hate Michael Vick (along with the entire Eagles roster) but there are so many worse people in the NFL. I agree that dog fighting is wrong, but Ben Roethlisberger fucking raped someone and I don't know about you but the rape of another human being is a much greater offence then animal fighting will ever be, that isn't an opinion it is a fact.

akkuma420 said...

Totally agree 100%.
Unfortunately I have witnessed a dogfight first hand because of where I used to live.
It's disgusting and horrifying to see what these innocent animals are put through for entertainment.
Makes me cringe just thinking about it.
Thank you for acknowledging and taking the time to discuss this.
The fact of the matter is that animals are completely innocent and trust us, and it's completely heartbreaking when people betray this trust for of all things financial benefit.
Fuck Michael Vick.

Peter said...

Ass Kicker: Well, no is an opinion. An opinion I agree with but by it's very definition its an opinion.

At 2nd Peter: Bullshit. I commented first. Therefore, I am the REAL Peter, whereas you will be known as Peter #2. Deal with it.

bobbzman said...

Wait a minute. Given the Madden Curse, shouldn't Bob WANT Michael Vick on the cover so that something bad will happen to him?

On a more serious note, I agree with the first commenter.

Will said...

Bob, I'm going to blow your mind (or, at least, it blew my mind and drove me into a murder-filled rampage of curse words for several days).

There are thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people or possibly even more, in this world who buy an Xbox or PS3 just for sports game and the occasional shooter.

No, this is not something I've heard from on guy or a few. I was on your at a college once and found at that in nearly every frat house, there was a gaming console with at least the last four madden and FIFA games. There was usually a copt of Halo 3 or a random Call of Duty game as well.

There are so many people go out to buy a game console just to play the sport games. Why? Well, $60 for an update doesn't seem like a big deal when you only do it once a year because ITS THE ONLY GAME YOU PLAY.

This is a serious and large group of """gamers""". That is how they get away with.

Their free time is spent watching sports and playign sports. They don't give a damn about the politics or anything ethical about these transactions.

For the college kids, its just an easy way to have some entertainment at a party or late nights of boredom according to what I've been told.

Overtime, it becomes more and more clear that a majority of people who buy games now of days, the majority of the money in the industry, is coming from people who simply play sports or shooters with friends.

I'm at high school right now and in every classroom there is at least fifteen people who are """gamers""". Either they only play the newest AAA shooter multplayer (singe player? Thats for losers) or only buy the newest EA sports games.

Perhaps this is just high school and its turned me bitter but people who actually play and buy other genres, actual gamers, are far and few between.

Alcibiades said...

You're a hypocrite, and so are most of the people who are calling for Vick's head.

It is generally accepted that murder is the worst possible thing one can do to someone, and yet we conveniently forget this in the case of animals. Because you lack the courage of your convictions to apply your oh-so-righteous indignation to your own actions, you can't see the crime in front of your face. If dog fighting is wrong, industrial farming must be far worse. I for one am sick of those moral crusaders who pretend that Vick is the scum of the earth while supporting and benefiting from a system that inflicts more suffering on animals in a day than all the dog fighting rings put together have ever done. I'm sure you somehow believe that your version of animal cruelty, housing livestock in inhumane conditions so your burger can be cheaper, slaughtering them, and consuming their remains is ever so much more holy than Vick's, which only goes to show the extent of self-deception.

And yeah, I eat meat. I'm of the opinion that the suffering of an animal has no moral worth. But I'm at least able to avoid hypocrisy and not worry about the mote in Vick's eye when there's a huge fucking two-by-four in mine.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

I think Michael Vick should be locked away for a few years for what he did, and he was. Perhaps should have been longer then he did, but still, 21 months in prison is nothing to scoff at. And obviously, I think any pet retailer should think seriously about selling him anything larger than a goldfish.

But, it's not like getting on the cover is of Madden some sort of humanitarian award or something. It doesn't require that he be a good or decent person... just that he be good at playing football, which I'll assume he is since I don't really follow football at all.

I don't feel that what someone does in their personal life should effect how they're treated in their professional life.

KingOfDoma said...


... here's my thing. The Curse is a crock of shit. It's been quantifiably discounted by anyone who gave it a cursory glance. So, once you take that away, all you're left with is taking a convicted animal murderer and making him the face of your game franchise.

So yeah, no. That's my message to all of the people who I'm sure are doing the hipster thing and voting for Vick ironically...

Joe said...

This is anecdotal, but I'm pretty sure the Madden fans don't mind spending $60/year for the same game with stat updates because they probably don't buy more than 4 or 5 games a year anyway. $60/year for hours of simulated sports fun is nothing to the people who spend that much monthly on cable, or half as much on game tickets, or put down similar amounts on fantasy football leagues.

Arman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arman said...

A good episode. Even though I have issue with some of the points, there is a solid case to be made. The only thing is I felt Bob missed an opportunity by dismissing three blindingly valid arguments.

1. Vick did his time
2. Vick is trying to redeem himself
3. And yes, even "its only a dog."

Why simply brush those aside? Vick went to prison, did his time, and hasn't lapsed back into the crime again. In the eyes of the law that makes him clean. He hasn't lapsed back into dog fighting (Not that we know of), so to many people he comes off as a repentant and rehabilitated man who did his penance.

And finally, to most people an animal occupies a lower rung on the moral hierarchy (a wild animal being lower than a pet, of course). After all shooting a puppy, as horrible as that is, is no where near as horrible as shooting a 6 year old child. I think the reason so many people brush off Vick's crime is because, while acknowledging that its bad to kill defenseless dogs for senseless purposes, its certainly not as bad as rape or murder.

Personally, I found it a little obnoxious that people I knew would have a stronger emotional response to animal abuse than to human abuse. I understand Bob's point about it, but its not enough to convince me.

In addition, and this is probably just semantic, I can't apply the verb murder to a dog. (and I love dogs) You can't murder an animal. You can only murder a human.

That doesn't make what Vick did right, of course. The behavior he demonstrated is indicative of a man with a very sick mind and heart. That said, I'm more than willing to let the guy prove that he's changed. Still the man did what he did, and I think its too soon to bestow him with any kind of honor.

And I end this rant here.

Kyle said...

*nudge nudge wink wink*

CrunchyEmpanada said...

Man, and I thought that Computer Gaming is Dead video was dumb.

This takes the cake. I really can't fathom how somebody could publicly make such terrible arguments and bandy them about as if they are in fact, good, strong, defensible positions, nay, absolutely correct positions. I would hope anybody with even the most cursory amount of experience in argument could realise Bob's entire video here is absolutely ridiculous.

The most egregious example is that Bob outright states that animals lack necessary features to function as moral beings. This is arguable in itself, but because Bob himself takes it as a truth, I shall too. The problem arises in that this most easily leads to the exact opposite position Bob thinks it does. If animals can not reason morally, they can not interact morally. That goes both ways. They can't be moral or immoral to us, we can't be moral or immoral to them. Same with say, a rock. Or for a more obvious example, bacteria. Frankly, if we take the "animals are morality-blind" position, it's difficult to argue our way out of the "we don't need to treat them with moral consideration" position.

To reiterate, because I can't stress this enough, most animal rights positions start off by trying to show there is nothing humans have, that animals don't, that makes us moral beings and them not. Since Bob outright states animals are not agents capable of morality, he throws away his strongest defence.

CrunchyEmpanada said...

(my original comment was too long, it's been broken into two)

Another point was brought up with the factory farming issue. Bob doesn't care about it certainly, but he doesn't offer any good reason why there's a moral difference between the two. Either way, animals suffer and die for human benefit, and arguably, animals suffer more under factory farming conditions than dog fighting ones. If they both don't have the same moral considerations, it should be pointed out why.

And boy does it grill my bacon when I hear people spout emotionally charged words that already assume their position is correct. It mildly bugs me when I hear Communists talk about "exploitation" without defining the term properly, but talking about dog fighting as literal "torture" and then "murder" is just...fucking retarded. Unless you got some serious arguments to support the assertion, which of course, Bob doesn't. The word "Torture" implies an active agent at work to outright cause pain, and "Murder", ignoring the standard that it's just a legal definition meaning "illegal killing" usually, in vernacular, means an agent actively killing something of equal moral consideration as a human. NEITHER fits the bill as far as "dog fighting" goes, as both are completely incidental to what the actual object of dog fighting is. Not to see animals suffer and die, but to see them *fight,* to see one dog win, the other lose. One might ask, if not for the violence and death, why go for dog fighting and not, say, baseball, or heck, boxing? Well, why go for boxing and not, say, wrestling? People have their preferred "games" but to these people, a "game" is all it is, and so it doesn't qualify as "torture" and without already assuming animals have equal moral agency to humans (which again, Bob somehow doesn't), it is also not "murder."

Of course I'm going to get a lot of flack for this. My complete emotional detachment to this issue is not "normal" because, you know, the average person is not used to trying to separate their gut emotional reactions to things from actual arguments for any given position. And anything against the cultural norm is just oh so evil. In point of fact, I don't care one way or another about dog fighting because I agree with Bob that animals are not moral agents, and I'm somebody who works hard to go by what seems *rational* and not what my own emotional prejudices are. Bob clearly is not well exercised in this idea. He's made it very, very clear he likes animals, dogs and monkeys in particular. It is no wonder then he feels the way he does, but he shouldn't bandy about his feelings as if they were reasonable, well thought out and valid arguments for an objective moral position. They're not.

munchie64 said...

@CrunchyEmpanada tl;dr

dkh said...

Actually.... Vick didn't do his time, and that's part of the problem. Yes, he served jail time, and that's part of it - he shouldn't have to do a minute more of jail time. However, the NFL has a required code of conduct, that dog fighting flat out goes against. Vick got his job back despite actively and maliciously violating this. That's part of the problem - he got a dream job, he abused it, and now he gets it back. Humility doesn't seem much a part of him, does it?

Arman, keep in mind he agreed to do service to stop unethical treatment of animals if and only if animal rights groups would agree to petition for him to rejoin the NFL. Does that sound like somebody who's simply trying to make things right?

Alci - it's really not that hypocritical. I understand where you're coming from, but there is a world of difference between killing something for a purpose (to eat it) and for the enjoyment of its death (blood sport).

Finally, Bob. You got one thing wrong - the stories are that Vick killed these dogs several different ways. He did not do this for gambling and profit. He killed the ones that wouldn't perform in various, brutal methods.

That part? He did that for fun.

dkh said...

Also, Crunchy?

There's a reason people don't gamble over games of Madden 2011 :)

Robert said...

And so munchie64 posted the inevitable tl;dr comment... proving once again the many dimwitted trolls that watch Bob's videos.

Well done CrunchyEmpanada

Arman said...

@ dkh

That's certainly a good point, and as I said "most people" tend to see past that. The penitent criminal is an attractive narrative to a lot of folks, which is why I think Vick is getting a pass from a lot of people.

That said, I'm generally of the belief that intentions matter a lot less than action. If Vick's contributions actually help to stop animal abuse, then I honestly don't care what his motivations are. God judges intentions. Men can only judge action.

Alcibiades said...

Alci - it's really not that hypocritical. I understand where you're coming from, but there is a world of difference between killing something for a purpose (to eat it) and for the enjoyment of its death (blood sport).

There really isn't. In fact, "the enjoyment of its death," is a purpose. We can have an aesthetic revulsion to one who would glorify in cruelty, but I don't think that revulsion has any moral bearing. If the appreciation of cruelty in itself, absent the effects of its cruelty, was morally reprehensible, then playing a dog fighting simulation- say, a video game- would be as morally reprehensible as the real thing. And I think no reader of MovieBob's will make that claim.

Cruelty is not morally reprehensible because the people practicing it give us the heebie jeebies. It's morally reprehensible because people suffer because of it. It's the consequences of the action that determine the morality of it, and MovieBob's actions are just as complicit in just as much suffering of animals as Vick's were.

This is obvious in any other circumstance, but people are so blinded by the need to justify their own meat-eating and their need to find a scapegoat in people like Vick that their rational faculties shut down.

As to use: It's difficult to say whether a cannibal is more immoral than a murderer. I think we can agree that both are pretty bad. In any case, if animals are to have moral standing, I think it makes little sense to protect them from cruelty but not from murder (and, inasmuch as animals and people generally prefer to keep living, murder is, of course, a form of cruelty, no matter how little pain they may experience in the process). If murder is the worst thing you can do to a human being, why does our morality so suddenly shift when speaking of animals? You can try any sophistry you like, but we both know the ultimate answer is because meat is tasty and we try to justify it to ourselves.

If by use, you meant that eating meat is necessary to continued human health or whatever, there is no necessary instrumental use that is served by eating meat. Vegetarians get along just fine, and in fact, growing plants is a more efficient use of resources and land than housing livestock. A vegetarian humanity would be healthier, its environment would be cleaner, and the number of people starving would be less.

Brad said...

We're not talking about Michael Vick the role model for thousands of predominately male black Americans with poor upbringings who may have made some mistakes in their lives and who have paid in full for these mistakes and yet still find society wont allow them to move on no matter how they try to redeem themselves.

We're not talking about Michael Vick who could stand as the one super high profile black athlete who admits his crimes, pays his due without complaints and genuinely sets out to rebuild his life (after losing everything) as a better person (Unlike Kobe, Tyson, OJ et al.)

Oh wait ...

Michael Vick is my hero. Everyday he inspires me to be a better person. And guess what? I'm not the only person who feels this way.
Most people will never understand a fraction of the pain of losing everything you have, being locked away from everyone you love for years, enduring it all and still being condemned and reviled.

I don't blame you for your tremendous ignorance Bob, but sometimes you have to know when to shut your judgmental mouth and admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. This isn't a movie or a comic book, this is a young man's life.

dkh said...


1) He lied about it. He only admitted his guilt after several people testified against him.

2) He did complain. He felt that the possibility of him getting back into the NFL should have bearing on his fines and financial requirements and bitched when the judge wouldn't take a "possibility" as a promise.

3) He didn't spend years in jail. Not to say he wasn't in prison for a good long while, but "less than two years" is, more or less by definition, not multiple years.

4) Reviled? Is this the same Michael Vick who got a standing ovation when he went out onto the Philly field for the first time? Is this the same Michael Vick who's doing very, very well in this ESPN contest?

5) Yeah, it's a young man's life. It's also on the subject of that young man's choices.


it seems to me you're suggesting a sort of oversimplified utilitarianism and are trying to play both sides of the field. We're human beings, not all powerful, all knowing gods. Nearly all plants and animals register injury (if not pain), so the argument could be made that we cannot injure anything. It could be argued that eating fruits and so forth interferes with the cycle of life, where does that leave us? A need for survival, food, clothing, etc. etc. does not inherently make us barbarians. It's what we do with these things. The thing is that your argument can be taken to absolutely any length, and it serves no purpose.

MovieBob said...


We're talking about a young man's life, yes. We're ALSO talking about the lives of other living things he mutilated and tortured for profit and a sick sense of "fun."

Let's be very clear here: Michael Vick was GIVEN an INCREDIBLE opportunity in life. He won the damn lottery in terms of being capable of throwing a ball skillfully and being born in a country that perversely values that fairly trivial skill highly enough to pay him more money than an entire STAFF of teachers, doctors, firefighters, etc to do it professionally... And he CHOSE TO PISS IT ALL AWAY.

I have ZERO sympathy for a spoiled brat making millions tossing a ball around whose STILL apparently so bored with his wealth and fame that he needs to torture a helpless creature to death to get his jollies.

akkuma420 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
akkuma420 said...

Sing it Sister!
Couldn't have said it better myself.

I love how because you have an opinion YOUR not allowed to express it and your ignorant, judgmental and apparently have no clue what your talking about.

Some people think WAY to highly of men that play with balls.

And before anyone says "Get off his dick you fanboy" or anything resembling that kind of statement... I just found THAT statement to be incredibly ignorant. It's called an OPINION for a reason and this is HIS blog for a reason.
Grow up or move on.

Jones said...

lol at all the commenters attempting to rationalize dogfighting.
Also professional athletes are worthless.

David said...

I don't know if this's been said before but Bob, did you forget about the Madden curse???? Just sayin.

Joshua said...

I have to agree with Alcibiades and CrunchyEmpanada.

Every last one of us who eats burgers has no right to judge Vick because we're indirectly cruel to animals every time we buy a double cheese.

Yes, the factory farming angle has merit. Please educate yourselves before dismissing this; Fast Food Nation (book) and Food Inc (film) are good places to start.

Meat production, you'll find, is just as cruel (if not much more so) than training animals for fighting.

Personally, I love me some double cheeses and don't give a damn how they get to my table. I also don't give a damn about dogs.

They are NOT people. They are ONLY animals. Cows and dogs are not the moral equivalent of humans and they never will be.

I'm voting for Vick just to spite you hypocrites.

BJames said...

he served his time, hes a football player, its a football Game, not a morality game.

Get over it.

akkuma420 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Smashmatt202 said...

Well, I voted. By the time I voted, Michael Vick was losing to Adrian Peterson 3-9. Hopefully it'll stay that way.

I had an interesting conversation with my mom about this, who thinks it so confusing that professional athletes and entertainers get paid more than people with buckets of degrees and education, like doctors. It's like America prefers people who can distract us the most as opposed to the people actually working to make a better tomorrow.

akkuma420 said...

I say this with respect for you and your opinion.
Have no intention on starting a argument, only an educated discussion.
That being said...
I totally understand and to some extent agree with where your coming from and what you have to say,
But people HAVE to eat.
If humans didn't eat meat we probably wouldn't kill cows/chickens/pigs etc for food.
It's just part of the food chain.
Dog fighting is used for nothing but sport and "fun".
Farm animals aren't slaughtered for sport or fun, it's a necessity to survive.
It's just not right to torture and eventually kill a animal financial gain and "fun".
It's abuse and nothing more.
Your right "Cows and Dogs are not equivalent to people and never will be"... does that mean we have the right to take a living creatures life that feels pain just for entertainment?
For me that's a no.
It's abuse any way you spin it.
Animals are innocent creatures that live along side of us in this world... just because we are higher up on the food chain does not give us any kind of right to kill them for anything more than food. They keep us alive and well, we should be thankful and respectful they are here.
Just my opinion though.

RestamSalucard said...

@akkuma This is more than just killing, which is what disgusts me the most about these PeTArds and apologetics on both the Escapist and this blog.

Dogs are not designed to kill one another, so to do dogfighting, you have to literally beat and torture them for years on end until they are mentally unstable.

Anyone who tries to equate this to eating meat or even intentional animal slaughter is either horribly ignorant, and therefore should follow Penn Jillette's advice, or a psychopath who should therefore remove himself from society as soon as humanly possible.

akkuma420 said...

Yea, it's horrible.
They put gun powder in there food to make them crazy and pump them full of steroids to give them the bulk needed to "survive" the fight.
The people that think Dog fights are "no big deal" have obviously never had the displeasure of witnessing one.
I, unfortunately have.
Used to live in a horrible area surrounding Las Vegas. A area where food delivery wouldn't deliver to our block after 5 for fear of being robbed.
Neighbors used to hold Dog fights in there front yard...
It was by far the most terrible, heart breaking, disgusting, difficult thing I have ever had to witness.
People just have no idea what they are defending here.

Timothy said...

Comparing eating a burger to dogfighting. On that I'm just going to just put this metaphor that I find equally valid.

Comparing a solider in a war to a serial killer.

And yet I don't see anyone here saying "because the soldiers in the military get off with killing people, the columbine kids shouldn't have been punished."

CrunchyEmpanada said...

Oh yes, because anybody who disagrees with you must be either ignorant or psychopathic.

Let's go through the arguments starting with akkuma420.

It is true that humans must eat, however our knowledge of biology and nutrition has moved us to the point where we no longer have to eat *meat*. We can now arrange for ourselves a nutritionally complete diet without using animals, or even animal products. It is thus no longer correct to say that we "have to" raise animals in factory farm conditions for their meat, "to survive." We don't. We do it because most people think it tastes better, and because it's culturally preferable to eat meat.

And if Cows and Dogs are not equivalent to people in the relevant way here (that is, morally speaking) it most easily means that yes, we can do whatever we want to them because they aren't objects of moral consideration. It is thus not "abuse" in a morally relevant way, no more than taking a sledge hammer to your car is "abuse."

As to what RestamSalucard has said, there are two things. First, it's pretty irrelevant what dogs are "designed" to do, as far as this is concerned. A rock is not designed to hammer in a nail, but if I lack a hammer, and need a nail hammered anyway, it's not immoral to use the rock. Obviously then, "design" does not clearly enter into this by itself. Secondly, dog breeding exists, and it's arguable to say that there are no dogs which are "designed" to fight. For all intents and purposes, American Pit Bull Terriers ARE bred for fighting, and have been bred for such almost since they were originally created.

And you know, another thing that grills my bacon is people's tendency to act that some analogies are "not the same thing" due to completely unspecified (probably unspecified because they are non existent) reasons. It doesn't actually advance your argument when you just cry out that something or another is not equatable. It just further makes you look like some emotional boob who shouldn't be bandying out opinions in public.

Tim said...

@akuma: Your logic is flawed.

"But people HAVE to eat." Yeah, but they don't have to eat meat so there's no justifying it. There are plenty of vegetarian alternatives out there for every flesh product you enjoy so it isn't like we would all starve if all of these places shut down.And having seen both a dogfight and what goes on in slaughter houses, I can say without hesitation that what goes on in slaughter houses is far, far worse. So I agree with Joshua that anyone who eats meat and complains about Vick is a hypocritical douche.

RestamSalucard said...

@Crunchy Empanada What part of "BEAT AND TORTURE TO THE POINT OF INSANITY" do you not understand?!

CrunchyEmpanada said...


What part of "not equivalent to people in a morally relevant way" do you not understand? IF animals are not worth moral consideration, THEN it does not matter what you to do them, whatever it is is not immoral because by definition, you can't do something immoral to a thing that does not allow for moral consideration!

Tim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tim said...

@RestamSalucard: Have you ever seen a cow have her throat slit and spill out while she writhes in pain and as all of the employees simply wait for it to die instead of putting it out of its misery?

“Anyone who tries to equate (dog fighting) to eating meat or even intentional animal slaughter is horribly ignorant”

Perhaps you should educate yourself before saying retarded things like that.

akkuma420 said...

See, that is a matter of opinion.
I see Vegetarians as being incredibly unhealthy and malnourished.
I feel meat is a crucial part of a healthy diet.
Just my opinion though.

Whether you agree with being a Vegan, Vegetarian or a carnivore it still doesn't make animal cruelty and or abuse ok.
I wish that slaughterhouses would find a better way of doing things and I do find alot of there methods questionable, but that doesn't make forcing innocent animals to fight ok.
I just don't see the logic that because we kill certain animals for food, its ok for everything to die, anything goes.

Also I would like to thank everyone for keeping this civil (for the most part), it's much more informative this way.
Plus alot of things that have been said have made me question my own thoughts and opinions because of the intelligent manner they where presented.

Tim said...

"I see Vegetarians as being incredibly unhealthy and malnourished.
I feel meat is a crucial part of a healthy diet."

*Shakes head at Akuma's outstanding ignorance*

munchie64 said...

*Looks at akkuma's post and sees an insightful argument with a compliment about people's intelligence*.

*Looks at Tim's post and sees some stupid comment insulting another persons intelligence from an opinion*.

akkuma420 said...

Well that explained absolutely nothing...
I guess we are passed explaining are comments and back to making derogatory statements in a immature attempt to make others feel stupid because they don't agree.
I guess I missed the memo that read "Tim's word is law, don't bother questioning anything because it doesn't matter... LAW!"
It's sad that some people have never seen a or heard of the word "Debate" and only know narcissism.
(sigh) It was nice while it lasted... Thanks to everyone besides Tim that provided me with some food for thought and a mentally stimulating conversation.
I don't agree with everything that was said, But I do respect and admire peoples ability to maintain composure in such a sensitive topic.
Everything I said was merely opinion and not based on any type of fact.
I won't be returning to this particular comment section, so don't bother Tim.
Call me what you will, just know your the one that ended a perfectly civil and thought provoking debate because of YOUR ignorant comment.
Narcissism is not a good quality to have.

akkuma420 said...

Thanks for that.
It's nice to know that some people can take an opinion as a opinion and not some kind of jab at there personal beliefs.
Tim, you should take notes from munchie...
May not agree, but understands it a opinion and nothing more.

Tim said...

@Akuma: Nice try, but don’t try to act like a statement like “Vegetarians are malnourished” or “meat is a crucial part of a healthy diet” doesn’t deserve to be looked down upon. They are completely wrong. A simple google search could absolutely destroy both of those. You know the old saying, “You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.” You did just try to make up your own facts. So yes, you ARE ignorant for saying it.

@munchie64: Seeing as you're the type of guy who writes stuff like "tl;dr”, you’ll have to excuse me when I disregard what you consider or be an intelligent or unintelligent comment.

akkuma420 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob said...

*Applauds wildly*

@Tim: Thank you. As a vegan bodybuilder myself, I’m sick and tired of reading idiotic comments like that. The ignorance that people have about vegetarianism and veganism is amazing.

@Bob: Good video. As far as I’m concerned, Vick can’t be punished hard enough. One minor gripe though. Madden is really the only EA Sports game that’s a true rip-off. The NHL series for example is a legitimate upgrade every year.

@Akuma: No offence, but that article has so many things wrong with it. Mostly stuff that has been refuted over and over again. The fact that it wasn’t posted by a doctor or someone with any real credibility doesn’t help. I’m going to assume that you didn’t actually read the article though because if you did you most likely wouldn’t have linked us to it.

akkuma420 said...

I Googled what you said to Google and this was the first actual article I could find on the first page, everything else was either a forum or a blog post.


Once again, this was the first article I came across on the first page.
Didn't do any research, just did a "Simple Google search" as you put it.

Yes I have heard that expression before, that's why I said it was MY opinion. No fact.
Vegetarian Vs. Carnivore can be argued all day long, but since there are "Facts" that "Prove" both sides wrong, it really comes down to opinion.
I'm sure that you will quickly find another article "Proving" the article I posted wrong and I could quickly do the same.
We could do this all day.
It come's down to opinion, preference and your own personal beliefs in the matter.

Now I'm really gone.
I have no interest in continuing (what I thought was) a Debate with someone who can't seem to take someone elses opinion.
Peace. (for real this time)

Tim said...

That article was embarrassingly stupid. Did you really read that and go “yep, this will show him”? I don’t even need to look up another article to explain to you why that’s wrong. I mean, even looking past his inconstancies about how amino acids work, he even addresses that you can get the proper amount of amino acids in a vegetarian diet, but then ignores that fact and just talks about what happens when you don’t get enough amino acids.

Also, just because you say “in my opinion” doesn’t make something an opinionated statement. An opinion is “Vegetables don’t taste good”. You said, “Meat is essential to a healthy diet”. That is a “fact” and an incorrect one. Hence, you’re ignorant and spreading bullshit. Don’t try to flip that around to me just not “accepting your opinion”.

Psyckid008 said...

I am not a vegetarian. Yesterday I actually ate one of those cheeseburger hot dog things that 7/11 sells so clearly I’m not a particularly healthy eater either, but I think it’s common knowledge at this point that the myths about vegetarians being malnourished have all been disproven at this point.

Also Akuma, I do have a problem with people simply referring to false information they’re telling people as opinions. This has always been something that always got under my skin. It’s something you see all the time really. Glenn Beck was particularly guilty of this.

Willingdruid said...



Tim said...

God dammit. What are the odds?

Dave Kraft said...

Great video, Bob. I wholeheartedly agree with you here. However, there is ONE thing I disagree with you about.....

..... I don't think EA is counting on Vick being on the cover of the game. I think they're counting on this controversy helping to advertise the game.

And I think, without intending to do so (or even trying not to, given all the things you've said about the Madden games), this video helped them accomplish just that.

The only way to make EA stop making Madden games and instead possibly release DLC and firmware updates is to have the Madden title slump into irrelevance like plenty of other titles do. Without a viable competitor to the Madden games, popularity of American Football will prevent that from happening, and the only way for one to crop up at this point is if Sega decides they want to start making more sports games like back in the day. Mark your calendar for "when hell freezes over" and "when pigs fly".

But seriously, Bob, in spite of all the things you said, beating this dead horse is counterproductive because it makes people more aware of a game that they might want to buy in spite of this controversy.

I'm not big into American Football, so I don't play Madden anyway (I never really found the gameplay of sports videogames to be fun anyway, at least, in comparison to having fun outdoors with my friends). But I can see lots of people who regrettably don't care about these things as much as you do who will be more likely to buy the game because you raise hell about it.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

munchie64 said...

@Tim Fair call, I just wrote tl;dr because CrunchyEmpanada's comment pissed me off so much....

I am in the camp of people who think it is a little hypocritical about hating this but still eating meat. I also think a vegetarian diet is fine and healthy. BUT if you think killing and hurting animals for fun is fine because they don't have the same moral standings as people, then you're a fucking idiot.

Popcorn Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Popcorn Dave said...

Man, I saw the title and I wondered how a video about Madden could have so many topics so quickly. Now I get it...

Tim, Alci and Joshua are all absolutely right (hold on, is this the Tim that trolls every other post? Surely not..). Forcing dogs to fight is awful, but what goes on in industrial farms is just as horrible and most people couldn't care less about the latter as they chow down on their super-saver chicken breast. If you think it's an unfair comparison, you're kidding yourself about what really goes on in the meat industry.

I understand the idea that animal suffering in meat production is acceptable because it's "for a purpose" but it's flawed because (a) you don't need to eat meat and (b) you can get animal products without resorting to these methods.

If you're honestly upset at what blood sports do to animals, I urge to you take a long hard look at what you're eating, because if the box doesn't say "free range", that animal probably had just as miserable an existence as any fighting dog, except YOU paid for it to happen! (And even that free range label isn't that much of a guarantee these days, sadly...)

sirrosser said...

Wait, wait, wait, let me see if I'm following this correctly...

The general consensus among vegetarians is that eating meat that's been processed at a factory is wrong because of torture...but torturing dogs is perfectly okie dokie? 'Cuz that's what y'all are makin' it sound like.

Tim said...

@sirrosser: Oh, stop putting words in our mouth asshole.

Of course that's not what we're saying. Vick is a scumbag and we all agree on that. All we're saying is that it's hypocritical for anyone who eats meat to get mad at Vick for torturing animals when they pay for people to of the same thing.

Now would you kindly go fuck yourself?

Ezenwa said...

My thoughts (please don't cut my head off):

At the end of the day, the saddest truth is, these players we call on to get punished, won't really be punished, with a few reasons behind it:

-If the player committed a federal offense (i.e. lied to a grand jury), then he or she will be hung out to dry. Otherwise, it's back to the field, since you really didn't do anything serious, in the eyes of the leagues they represent.

-If every player who took part in any crime that could have affected the integrity of the league they represent was found to be guilty and deserved punishment, the leagues themselves would collapse, if not for the fact that there would be no star players to generate revenue, then for the officials who knew this and have their interests to protect. It's a house of cards that must be kept from falling

-If the crime itself is of a personal preference, it's not at the league's discretion to fully penalize these players. Well, actually it is, but if they choose not to, it's because it's a personal matter that has nothing to do with the league. They have plenty of players that are upstanding people and they don't need to make role models, since well, sports stars are not to be seen as such.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. Please don't cut my head off. :-)

sirrosser said...

@Tim I've decided to prepare two comments, and you can decide which, if either to reply to, depending on which amuses or enrages you.

Statement 1 - I apologize if I seemed to be insulting of your beliefs, or to be putting words in your mouth. I only meant by my statement that the outside observer, not having followed the whole thread, may get the wrong impression of those participating in the argument. In the spirit of debate, however, I believe that it would do the vegetarian set (not all, but some) credit to find common ground with those who they disagree with. For instance, though you may not change anyone's opinion about eating meat, you may be more likely find common ground by agreeing with the opposition about activities that NEITHER side condones, such as the aforementioned dogfighting. When you seek instead to use it as a springboard to belittle and berate others' lifestyles, it makes it less likely that you will be heard out by those people in the first place, diminishing the likelihood of ever coming to some sort of mutual understanding.

Statement 2 - How can I be putting words in your mouth when you've already got your foot in there and your head's up your ass, besides!?

Take your pick. You may fire when ready, Gridley.

Popcorn Dave said...

Why should we cater to people who haven't bothered to read the whole thread? It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that no-one said dog fighting is okay, unless you count people who said they don't care.

counterpoint said...


You keep bringing up the moral-inequivalence of humans and animals. The problem with this is that you presume that "below humans" equals "rock." Just because animals are below humans on a moral framework, there's absolutely not reason to assume - which is what you're doing - that they have the moral equivalency of an inanimate object.

Sure, a dog is NOT a person, but it is somehow in between a car and a person. It is alive, it has a central nervous system. Does my car feel pain? No. Does my cat? Yes.

And to those of you going back and forth about the hypocrisy of eating meat. Yes, we all have to get over it. The meat industry IS absolutely horrible. It is inhumane, filthy, and - just like dogfighting - PROFIT DRIVEN, not survival-driven.

But, that doesn't mean that "eating meat" is equally hypocritical. Just the industry that creates most of it. Eating animals is more-or-less a natural part of the world. It's just that the corporate methods have ruined this.

So, again, I think many of the assumptions raised on this issue are equally silly. do I speed in my car sometimes? yes. does that mean I'm going to drink and drive? No. Am I a hypocrite? In some ways, yes, but in the big picture - NO. "Participating" in a giant - mostly invisible - "evil" enterprise like the meat industry is certainly bad, but it is not equivalent to masterminding dogfighting rings. There IS middle ground of responsibility and ethical denialability.

Btw, I eat meat, but those of you who think is is unhealthy to be a vegetarian don't know the way to be a vegetarian. We would all be healthier, I'm pretty sure, if we cut meat from our diets - especially red meat.

CrunchyEmpanada said...


There are only two possibilities. Animals either have the necessary qualities that make them moral beings, or they do not. If they have "some" then they "have" the necessary qualities, as far as I mean. The thing is, Bob stated they *don't*. He didn't say they had "some" he said they didn't have any, that they were not like humans, and it's a position I'd agree with.

But sure, it is possible animals are "in between" a rock and a human, but to make that argument, first you'd have to identify the necessary qualities a moral being must have to be a moral being, and then demonstrate animals have some of them (and if some, which ones), and then argue that having "some" means having "some" moral consideration, and THEN you have to explain what considerations a human must make to an animal with only "some" moral consideration. It gets even trickier, because not all animals are the same, so it becomes a question that if, for example, a Human and a Dog are different morally, what about a Human and a goldfish, or a dog and a horseshoe crab, or an elephant and a dish of E-coli. It's not a simple matter, and it's not a matter Bob, or anybody else here arguing for the "dogfighting is morally evil" position, actually takes with any sort of mental rigour.

Further, I feel it's arguable that a cat feels pain in a relevant way as far as this subject goes. If we define pain as just the pain receptors firing a certain way, or the reaction to this firing, yeah, a cat feels pain. But that's such a basic and surface analysis of what it actually *feels* like for a human to experience pain. As a human is a sapient, self-aware thing, that is, we have qualia, it becomes questionable that any animal feels pain "like we do," and if they don't, then it becomes questionable that their pain actually matters here.

Put another way, if animals are not sapient in the proper way then their pain is irrelevant, as there is no being which is "experiencing" the pain. It's just an automata reacting to external stimuli.

FURTHER, even if we establish that the cat feels pain exactly like we do, it's still not immediately evident why this matters, for it could be that consequential pain and suffering have nothing to do with moral considerations, nor is it clear that "the ability to feel pain like us" is a requirement for moral beings to be moral beings.

What I'm trying to point out here is that your "my car doesn't feel pain, but my cat does" argument isn't rigorous enough for me to even consider it a proper argument, and most certainly it doesn't sway me from my opinion.

counterpoint said...


you must be someone who doesn't accept evolution as a scientific and historical principle. If so, then we're going to have to agree to disagree.

YES there is a spectrum from non-sapience to sapience. of course there is. It certainly doesn't make any scientific sense that one day "Man" went from "almost man" to "actual man" and suddenly gained consciousness. Chimps and other close relatives of humans must, almost by definition, be closer to sapience than an amoeba - and of course, a car. So to discount that a cat truly "feels" pain doesn't make any sense. I would absolutely agree that it feels pain differently than a human - but certainly a heck of a lot MORE than a rock. So I certainly disagree with the "switch" you seem to think exists between humans and animals.

Again, if you don't accept evolution, you won't agree with any of that. If so, I'm barking up the wrong tree, and I would doubt my (or Bob's, probably) logical arguments will resonate with you, regardless of the topic, as your brain works much differently than mine.

Also, let me remind you that the morality of the animal itself is quite irrelevant - the truth is that human society - at least in america - has created a morality surrounding animals. They are, according to society, above a rock, and to be treated as such. This applies especially to pets, less to wild animals, and FAR less to food-animals, which explains a great deal of the "hypocrisy" that has been described in this thread.

CrunchyEmpanada said...


Evolution has pretty much nothing to do with anything I've said, and it boggles my mind that you've brought it up.

I've pretty much lost grasp of what you're trying to say, and what any of it has to do with anything. I can see this is partially because you've somehow managed to conflate several different arguments I've made, but even assuming that, I just don't really know why you've gone the direction you have. But allow me to try to argue with you anyway.

First off, it may very well be that one day "man" went from "almost man" to "actual man." After all, there is that whole "great leap forward" thing. It's difficult to explain why anatomically modern humans were walking around for a hundred thousand years doing nothing, and then all of a sudden, BAMN, culture and civilization.

Second, science isn't very good at explaining conciousness. It's not very good at explaining the mind. It's not very good at ontology generally. It isn't any good at aesthetics, or epistemology, and it, most importantly here, isn't any good at morality. This is why these subjects are NOT part of modern science, and why you shouldn't be acting as if this discussion can so easily be cleared up with a few scientific remarks on evolution.

Third, even if we accept your position, and say that chimps are "closer to sapience than an amoeba" you still have to answer all those OTHER questions I outlined in my last comment. How much closer are they? In what ways are they closer? Why does it matter that they are? And, most importantly, what does this mean, morally. None of this you've explained.

I am at a loss how you brought what I said about pain into anything. It truly seems like a random non-sequitor to me to suddenly bring it up the way you just did.

And finally, if you're going to go the "moral relativism" route, I'm going to have to stop talking to you right now. This idea that society creates morals is the stupidest, most loathsome moral position that could possibly be held, and only the philosophically ignorant, or inept, hold said position. Anybody who claims that morality is just a product of culture or society and there's no objective moral guide is somebody who has no business talking about ethics.

Dave said...

Anyone else find it hilarious that the biggest argument on this site is not about comics or movies or games or even politics, but about whether or not dogfighting is bad?

And doubly hilarious that militant vegetarians and dogfight afficionados are apparently on the same side of the issue.

@ Crunchy

"This idea that society creates morals is the stupidest, most loathsome moral position that could possibly be held, and only the philosophically ignorant, or inept, hold said position. Anybody who claims that morality is just a product of culture or society and there's no objective moral guide is somebody who has no business talking about ethics."

It's also true. Exactly where do you think morals come from? It's not like some magic elves sprinkle us with fairy dust while we dream and that gives us morals. Societies create their own morals. That's why our morals differ from those of even 30 years ago. That's why our morals are different form those of animals (and yes, some animals DO possess what we would call morals. Chimps and some kinds of dogs are very proactive in enforcing a group morality), Morals are an evolutionary adaptation common to social animals.

I'd like to ask something of the militant vegetarian/vegans here. I know that factory farming has a huge effect on the local ecosystem. I'm aware that growing crops is much easier.

What I'm asking is, say you guys get your way and eating meat is now illegal across the globe. What do you do with the animals? Bec ause I fail to see how they could be released without either condemning them to slow death by starvation and disease, or by having them decimate the local ecosystem.

Furthermore, will you be using pesticides to grow the vast feilds that will be needed to feed the world? Does not pesticide involve killing animals?

counterpoint said...


In response to your last paragraph: congrats! You've "won" the discussion by insulting me, my intelligence, and those who might hold similar views. At least, won it in the sense that I'm done participating in said conversation. So, again, congratulations, and enjoy your life, as best as might be possible.

Tim said...

@Dave: Stop being a stupid cunt. We're not on the same side as people who support dog fighting.

Nick Zou said...

For those saying that his crime is unrelated to football therefore said actions should not influence the decision of who gets the cover.

First consider, that one of the many reasons espoused by football enthusiasts and parents trying to get their kids into the game is precisely this notion of "character building". Otherwise it is just a bunch of big guys playing a violent sport. This applies to all sports of this nature by the way, I've been trying MMA for over 2 years now and I have to constantly defend it by making sure people understand that it is not just about doing as much damage as you can to the other person, it is about overcoming your own limitations. Now if that element didn't exist at all. Yes, than MMA, or any combat sport, or any sport that has any hint of violence would be barbaric and adds nothing to the culture as a whole. Especially in this day and age. But I am a fan of football, not just the game but for what it stands for. And you would have to be some kind of idiot or purposefully blind yourself to not realize that a game is not simply a game, it has other connotations. As does everything!

Look, maybe you're one of those people who would buy Charles Manson's album if it were good. But that doesn't cut it for me. I don't care how good his music is. There's a principle involved and you cannot separate a man's art or craft from his character. Not entirely.

This is bullshit justification would allow Michael Vick to slaughter an orphanage so long as he can throw a touchdown pass on fourth down in his own ten yard line. No that is not how it works. You do not offset your crimes by being better at your craft. Maybe Michael Vick can commit genocide on a whole nation so long as he has 10 perfect seasons and wins 10 straight Superbowls. But that's not how society should function and if he were to have committed said crimes with an equal increase in skill and feats, tell me, do you still think he deserves the cover?

If you said yes to this question, than you obviously admire the dedication of a man to his craft more than value of his character and that is what is most important to you as a person than we have different moral values and this argument is pointless.

I'll say this again, a talent you bring to your craft does not permit you to commit crimes. And we must demand better of our public figures. Like it or not, they have influence, that is the burden of being a public figure.

CrunchyEmpanada said...


No, it's not true. And I am continuously annoyed that the layman assumes it's true with such vigour. It's literally the philosophical equivalent of insisting the earth is flat. Wouldn't you be annoyed by the idea if you were constantly told by everyone who wasn't also a scientist that "most assuredly the Earth is flat, for if it was round, we'd slide off!" or some such nonsense. Hell, within Philosophy, being called a Moral Relativist is basically an insult, so universal is the idea that it's a stupid indefensible position.

I'm also astonished by the unity of arguments the layman constantly uses as defence. It's usually always said "there are many different ethical opinions, spanning numerous cultures, so clearly morality is relative!" But nobody ever says "there are many different opinions about physics, so clearly physics is relative!" It never occurs to you people that some people, groups, cultures, or what have you are simply *wrong* in their ideas on ethics. It is therefore irrelevant that different people have different ideas, that ideas change, or what have you. It just means we aren't omniscient and we all aren't right all the time.

Finally, once again science and evolution have nothing to do with this. Morals spring from at least some natural phenomena...okay, fine, nobody would disagree with this. Even Divine Command Theory doesn't disagree.



Yeah, I get testy when people throw the "morals are relative" idea at me. I would hope that people arguing about ethics would have at least the cursory amount of knowledge required to know that wherever morals come from, they come from something that isn't just the whims of society.

Dave said...

@ Crunchy. You can assert that morals aren't relative as long as you want but that doesn't mean they aren't.

Every society on earth has made its own set of morals that differ from each other slightly to wildly depending on various factors.

Unless you can provide an objective source of morality, you don't get to claim there is one.

So I'll ask you, if you are SO sure morals have an objective source, what is it?

CrunchyEmpanada said...


Same to you. At least I have, oh, you know, the entire field of Philosphy behind me on this particular opinion.

And if every society on earth had its own ideas on Physics, that wouldn't at all mean that physics was relative.

And finally, where objective morals come from is completely removed from the question on if they are objective or relative in the first place. Unlike the latter, the former is a bit more divisive in Philosophy.

Dave said...

@ Crunchy. No, not same to me.

I already stated where morals come from. They are the end result of social contracts made by social beings to facilitate living together smoothly.

You are asserting a source for morality exists but refusing to say what it is. Which begs the question as to whether one exists since you can't produce it

If I were a betting man I'd say you do know where you think morals come from, you just don't want to admit it.

Also, no, you don't have the entirety of philosophy backing you up because since philosophy is the academic equivalent of what you and your freinds say while high. Philosophy has no bearing on actual reality, it is just people stating ideas about random stuff.

"And if every society on earth had its own ideas on Physics, that wouldn't at all mean that physics was relative."

True. That's because physics are quantifiable. Physics is math. Something either is, or it isn't. it doesn't matter if a group of people declare that gravity doesn't exist, it still does. However if a group decides they are going to consider genital mutilation immoral, guess what? by their morals it is. Morality does not affect whether something exists or not. It dictates our attitudes to wards what exists.

Seriously, how does an allegedly educated person make such an illogical argument.

Stop trying to make excuses and support your claims. If morals are objective, provide the source. How else can you even know?

CrunchyEmpanada said...


So you are not only ignorant in the subject of philosophy, you have an actual disdain for it. Yet you insist on talking about it? Wow, that's really, really, monumentally, stupid. What do you think you're doing right now? Philosophy. Albeit, poorly. If you think it has no baring on reality, kindly shut the fuck up and do something else. I'm done speaking to you. I'm not going to continue speaking with a literal self-professed idiot.

Dave said...

@ Crunchy

I've seen better deflections. You really expect everyone not to see how you are just refusing to answer what should be a very simple question?

And now you are manufacturing outrage so it looks like you have a way to quit with some dignity. That's sad. All I've asked you to do was to support your own position. You should be falling over yourself to do that. I mean, if you actually could provide an objective source for morality, wouldn't that completely destroy my entire argument?

But sure, run away. I accept your foulmouthed concession.

munchie64 said...

Dave Wins: Fatality!

Michael Schnier said...

@ Dave:

An objective source of ethics? It's called empathy. You know, the capacity to understand that other beings have experiences, such as, I dunno, pain and suffering? Yeah, that.

Dave said...

@ michael

Empathy is by its nature subjective. You are imagining what it feel like to be someone else under a certain set of circumstances.

IN fact, history is full of incidents of people doing horrible things because they thought their victims "would thank me for it later"

Michael Schnier said...

One's empathy may be subjective, but the subjectivity it analyzes is not. The subjectivity of a sentient being is objectively its subjectivity.

If something has a subjectivity, then it is the object of ethical concern.

Dave said...

@ Michael

It doesn't matter. It's still not objective, because it is still all in your head. what you THINK someone else might want is not the same as having an objective view since it is still biased by your own experiences.

Robert said...

100th comment! tee hee :)

Michael Schnier said...


Nonsense. Of course there is objectively something happening in other people's minds. So long as other people exist and have minds, something is going on inside them. That's a state of what is: it's objective.

My guess of exactly what's going on in someone else's mind may be subjective - but the fact that it *has* a mind and experience is objective fact.

Eat it.

Nick said...


You are missing Dave's point.

Human experiences and motives are, by their nature, subjective. Yes, it is an "objective" fact that the clusters of neurons inside a person's head are arranged in this or that jumbled-up pattern at any given moment (although thanks to quantum probability waves, even THAT is open to interpretation), but what that MEANS is subjective. It can be (and has been) interpreted a million different ways.

As Dave said, history is full of people doing horrible things who claimed that their victims "would thank me later."

Michael Schnier said...


No. You're missing my point.

What a person is thinking is what a person is thinking. If I am not me, but Dave instead, whatever Nick happened to be thinking at 7:38PM last Wednesday doesn't change. Subjective experience happens in an objective space: reality.

Nick said...