Quote:
Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21
Second, growing up in an area where you witness a particular illegal activity being prevalent does not make the illegal activity any less illegal or the behavior any less disgusting. By your reasoning, it would be appropriate to support a white supremacist's actions because you grew up in an area where everyone was a member of the kkk. Or, it would be appropriate to condone Michael Irvin's use of crack/cocaine because where you grew up there was a crack whore on every corner. After all, shouldn't we just turn a blind eye to criminals and "mind our own business?" The position is preposterous.
|
Whether you want to believe it or not, the majority of people that grow up in areas where racism is an accepted norm are generally racist themselves or have a much higher tolerance for it than most people. And poor or unethical treatment of human beings is not even close to the same thing as poor treatment of pit bulls, no matter how much some of you try to relate the two.
The Michael Irvin issue is a completely different ballpark. The only people effected by his cocaine use is himself and his family. Why would I, or anyone else have anything to say about it?
Anyway, I agree with dmek. Why do Clinton Portis' social opinions matter? He's not an elected official or a law enforcement officer. He's a damn football player. His opinions don't mean dick. And I'm still not convinced the original issue isn't being blown out of proportion more than normal because Michael Vick is the culpret.