Anyone catching this lame new pro-Michael Vick argument making the rounds?

[Bleacher Creature]

Essentially, a number of people are arguing that Vick doesn't deserve the punishment he's getting because other players (e.g., Ray Lewis, Leonard Little, etc.) received far less punishment even though their alleged crimes were against humans. Look, I agree that it's a travesty that professional athletes can be involved in murders, sexual assaults, etc. and get away next to scott free, but that doesn't absolve Michael Vick of anything. All it means is that if Vick is going to go away for 2-5 years, those other guys should have gone away for 10+.

[NC_Nurse]

1. Agreed.

If he is guilty he should do the time. I don't know why athletes should get any lesser sentence than anyone else. If
anything, it seems LESS excusable to me. They lead lives of riches and privilege. I don't think he did it because he needed the money....

Those poor dogs! :-(

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Agreed. I was trying to find a quote about judging a civilization by their

treatment of animals, but found this one.

"He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals."
-- Immanuel Kant

[IndianaJones]

3. Yeah...that argument is brand new. nt.