Someone posed this question on facebook.
I went on the post to say that Vick has seemingly shown remorse for his actions and Chris has continued to act like an overgrown baby. However, someone's rebuttal was that dogs can't protect themselves and women can.
I'll never understand this logic. Abusing women is not as bad as abusing dogs because women can fight back and dogs can't?
So let me ask you guys this...who deserves a second chance more Chris Brown of Michael Vick??? Pick one and don't say "neither".
I went on the post to say that Vick has seemingly shown remorse for his actions and Chris has continued to act like an overgrown baby. However, someone's rebuttal was that dogs can't protect themselves and women can.
is saying that he isn't an ultimate dick... he is... however my issue is that Vick abused something that had NO CHOICE in the matter. While abused women tend to become "brainwashed" in a sense... being in Hollywood... I am sure that the resources and support, etc.. were available. AGAIN not making it okay. But someone who abuses something that cannot fight back... animals, babies, children, elderly,disabled... there is a special place in hell for them. It is another level of evil.
I'll never understand this logic. Abusing women is not as bad as abusing dogs because women can fight back and dogs can't?