Posted on 09/30/2009 7:42:52 PM PDT by fiscon1
Michael Vick is back with Nike two years after the company severed ties over the quarterback's involvement in a dogfighting ring.
"Mike has a long-standing, great relationship with Nike, and he looks forward to continuing that relationship," his agent, Joel Segal, said Wednesday
(Excerpt) Read more at sports.espn.go.com ...
Crap. No more Nikes for me.
If only I buy Nikes so I can boycott them.
The new Nikes — made from 100% pure dog skin with dog fur inner lining.
“Michael Vick says ‘man, they is COM-FY!’”
Money talks, dead dogs walk.
The “rehabilitation” has begun.
Hmmm... now I am trying to remember the last time I bought Nike. LOL.
I just don't see the upside for Nike. They'll piss off a ton of people and nobody even knows if Vick is going to a player worth watching again.
New motto: “At least it was dogs”.
well, I was curious how FP would feel about this and so far it’s overwhelming. Is it all right if he’s on my fantasy team?
I buy them on clearnce at Shopko, usually discounted by more than 50%. I buy them because they last me 6 months to a year longer than cheap sneakers.
I still can’t get past the fact that my once beloved but now disgraced Eagles signed this guy. Now he’s getting endorsement deals.......
Good point. Waiting and seeing.
As hard nosed as I am on some things I’ll say this. The man did his time and he’s entitled to make a living.
Thus far Vick is really struggling to get acclimated with the speed of the NFL.
I personally hope the Eagles crash & burn on the whole fiasco.
Y’all will probably flame the hell out of me for this but I say good for him.
Whenever the Vick issue comes up I can never seem to get a rational answer to my questions. Most people seem to think that the visceral response is the correct one, reason and logic be damned.
We kill thousands upon thousands of animals in this country every day without blinking an eye yet Vick kills a few dogs and everyone goes bats**t crazy? Yes I know it’s illegal but legality and morality rarely go hand in hand.
What’s the moral difference between a dog and a cow?
What moral principle says you can kill one and not the other?
Whose rights did Vick violate in order for what he did to be considered immoral?
“As hard nosed as I am on some things I’ll say this. The man did his time and he’s entitled to make a living.”
I agree with you in principle, but I’m not happy that its with a franchise that represents themselves to my community as the “Gold Standard of NFL Franchises” and continually boasts and credits its success to the integrity and character of its players. There’s no way in hell I want to see Michael Vick become immortalized with the WWII vets that brought us the 1948-49 NFL Titles, or the 1960 team that won the NFL Championship vs the Packers handing Vince Lombardi his only Title game defeat or even the Vermeil teams of the 1980’s for which the movie Invincible is based on. The Eagle organization showed a blatant disregard for the fans and the history of the franchise when they signed Vick.
What’s the moral difference between a dog and a cow?
The cow is raised for food. Nobody eats a dog. The slaughtering process is hideous, which is why many of us only eat bison. The animals are marked from birth, they’re slaughtered on a schedule. They’re felled aerially. One shot stuns the herd and the animal is then collected and butchered. It is precise and humane and the meat is more nutrient rich and lean.
What moral principle says you can kill one and not the other?
Dogs have lived with us for centuries. They have earned their title as man’s best friend. You can kill them all, we do have dominion over the earth, but why would you want to if it’s not for food or to limit populations for their own well-being?
Whose rights did Vick violate in order for what he did to be considered immoral?
I don’t know about rights, but for damn sure he violated sensibilities and mores. Our morality has dictated those sensibilities and mores, so we consider what he did immoral. Personally, I also consider *him* immoral.
I don’t know the specifics of thousands of other killings of animals that you are equating with Vicks torturing dogs for mere pleasure by electrocution and drowning. So I guess you won’t be getting any rational answers from me...just the visceral response: I don’t like this guy and I dislike it even worse that he’s wearing an Eagles uniform.
The Cowboys do the same thing. Every team in the NFL would sell it’s soul for an extra win a season. The games not the same these days as I remember it in my youth. They should change the logo to...N$L. ;o)
Saying cows are raised for food and dogs for companionship doesn’t really tell me the moral difference between killing them, it just states a fact. BTW: I’ve slaughtered pigs and chickens before. Now if you’re saying its wrong to kill for reasons other than food or clothes, that might have a shred of rationality behind it if further thought out but it also opens a whole ‘nother can of worms.
You said, “Our morality has dictated those sensibilities and mores…”
Are you a moral relativist then? Cause those change from place to place. If so then our differences are more epistemologically based and that would take forever to resolve.
But I’m beginning to get the picture. For me, morality is based on the rights of the individual. I define immorality as the violation of individual rights.
Since animals don’t have right (right?) then did nothing wrong. Gross, yes but not immoral.
Vick did his time, he didn't mouth off, and he didn't have a hissy fit...
until I see rapists and child molesters and child pornagraphers in jail doing at least the time that Vick did, then Vick playing football is fine with me...
Good call there!
Nike just issued a statement today denying they have any contractual relationship with Vick.
Nikes denies:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4521948&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines
Nike said Thursday it does not have a “contractual relationship” with Michael Vick, a day after the quarterback’s agent announced a deal with the manufacturer.
In a statement released Thursday morning, Nike said it has “agreed to supply product to Michael Vick as we do a number of athletes who are not under contract with Nike.”
they said they were giving him product. they backed away from having a “deal” with him. i think this is his agent talking smack.
Hope you’re right.
so now there is no deal. they are just giving him some stuff. they can do what they want, but we don't have to buy their stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.