Not quite....
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I don't get why he's so courageous. (I'm not trying to be cynical, I really just don't understand).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Pardon my french-commie, but apparently you have to be pretty courageous to be a rat**** bloodsport-loving dog murderer.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, I'm really not sure what's so courageous about grasping really tight the opportunity to return to fame, respectability, and more money.
Unless he's dived in front of an onrushing semi to save a puppy or something, doesn't seem at all merited to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If he dived in front of an onrushing semi to save a couple hundred puppies, I might call it even for all he's done wrong.
One would be a drop in the bucket.
And without the life-risking effort to save said puppy, he isn't deserving of any award I can think of except a slap on the back for not violating his parole.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I wouldn't turn my back on that man, nor would I want to share a locker room with him. If you can strangle helpless animals with your bare hands, not to mention all the other ruthless things he did for sh*** and giggles, I think you could do anything.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What if he''s actually changed as the article implies?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Frankly, if he has, I suspect we would've heard about the tangible examples of such a change in the press, and this discussion we're having would be different.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: Not necessarily. In fact I would be much more impressed if he didn't crow about all the "big changes" he had made, yet he made them all the same.
His fellow team mates seem to be in the best position to express his character, I'd give them quite a bit of credence.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
If he's actually changed but hasn't bragged about it, that's great, but then we have basically no evidence of it and there's not lot we can talk about.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What if he''s actually changed as the article implies?
I still wouldn't ever trust him, no matter how much he appeared to change. I think the only thing that could make him do the things that he did is a real character defect, and I don't know that people are capable of changing that much. I believe he's probably been punished enough, but there's no reason to ever forgive him for his deeds.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh: Not necessarily. In fact I would be much more impressed if he didn't crow about all the "big changes" he had made, yet he made them all the same.
Well, the thing is, I do in fact think that's how the most character change and the most effective. I'm just saying, from him, I suspect there would be crowing or at least unattributed crowing and press mention. That's all.
------
quote: I think the only thing that could make him do the things that he did is a real character defect, and I don't know that people are capable of changing that much.
I don't really believe in absolutes when it comes to human issues. I'm also not sure if someone who was trained by their own upbringing to think one way can't be trained to stop thinking that way, too.
quote:I believe he's probably been punished enough, but there's no reason to ever forgive him for his deeds.
What, no reason ever? There is literally nothing he could do that would earn forgiveness? That seems like a major stretch to me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Perhaps you're right. I think in this particular case, he seemed to me to have very little appreciation of why what he did was so wrong. Even if he never does it again, I wouldn't personally trust him with anything, no matter how much he seemed to change. That's just prudent- you strangle and electrocute dogs in your backyard = I never trust you.
And yeah, no reason to forgive him. The things he did are unforgivable, full stop.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't disagree with the notion that he's untrustworthy so far-his 'repentance', what little there has been of it, smacks of pragmatic public relations work to me more than anything else. And until any repentance actually becomes trustworthy, I can certainly see never trusting someone.
The never-evers, though, well...the trouble with that kind of belief is the problem of where the line gets drawn, for one thing. And if it's drawn in one spot in one direction - the unforgivable direction - what if that same person does something over the line in the other direction, that is, heroic, noble, self-sacrificing?
Another problem is that removing the possibility of forgiveness, speaking generally here, does something harmful to recidivism, don't you think? If there are things that nothing can ever forgive, well, then why not just keep doing them until the criminal gets caught? There's no hope anyway.
I'm not asking about making up for it-obviously those dogs are never going to be un-killed and un-tortured. But that's a different thing from being forgiven.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What if he''s actually changed as the article implies?
Doesn't make him courageous, or even a good person.
I hope he has changed, but awarding a man for no longer murdering animals is like awarding a child molester who only looks at kids these days.
Makes me glad Philly isn't my team.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:but awarding a man for no longer murdering animals is like awarding a child molester who only looks at kids these days.