Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Josh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.

But during that Saturday night game, DRaysBay.com editor Erik Hahmann suggested that enough was enough. “It gets brought up every game by some ####### on twitter,” he tweeted. What ensued was a discussion, largely made up of male writers and fans, about the etiquette of reminding people that Lueke raped a woman.

Lars6788 Posted: April 22, 2014 at 09:31 PM | 302 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: brett myers, josh lueke, rape, rays, when enough is enough

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 4 > 
   1. vivaelpujols Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:39 AM (#4691679)
Kobe
   2. vivaelpujols Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:43 AM (#4691680)
Who gives a #### if the people involved in the discussion were males? Since males are significantly more likely to get murdered than females, are females opinions on murder irrelevant?
   3. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: April 23, 2014 at 01:22 AM (#4691686)
Little people do little things. Every time Bobby Cox gets brought up around here, a handful of folks will show up to make the 'wife beater' comment. For people with nothing going on, the only sensation they get up moving up is by trying to bring others down. Haters gonna hate.

*Obviously not an endorsement of Lueke or rape in general.
   4. Dr. Vaux Posted: April 23, 2014 at 01:25 AM (#4691687)
Did Lueke get convicted of this in court?
   5. vivaelpujols Posted: April 23, 2014 at 01:38 AM (#4691690)
It doesn't matter. He's a rapist. Forever.
   6. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2014 at 01:59 AM (#4691694)
Did Lueke get convicted of this in court?

No. From TFA:
Lueke pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of false imprisonment with violence. He was sentenced to the 42 days he'd already spent in jail

Not going to defend the guy, but it appears there was a rather quick plea bargain that gave him time-served, all of 42 days. Maybe not as clear cut a case as the headline suggests.
   7. Dr. Vaux Posted: April 23, 2014 at 04:07 AM (#4691709)
Well, one's initial impulse is to say that if he pleaded no contest then that's an admission of guilt. But with our "justice" system, that's probably not a very good assumption. For one thing, if the DA allowed a plea bargain like that, it might be evidence that they didn't think they had a great case. A regular person might still take the shot to defend himself if he didn't do it, because even if it's a long shot, having a no contest conviction of something like that basically ruins your life. But Lueke knew he'd be able to earn a lot of money playing baseball if he could get out of prison, so his calculation would have been different.

(Needless to say, if he did do it, then there's no reason why anyone should particularly forget about it.)
   8. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:11 AM (#4691711)
The plea deal in this case happened because the victim didn't want to have to testify about her rape in open court, which is pretty understandable. They had him dead to rights, more or less, with him lying to the police and saying that he'd had no physical contact of any sort with the victim, a statement that was contradicted by DNA recovered from her hair, clothing, and anus. He made a no-contest plea to a felony, and issued an apology in his pre-sentencing statement.

He did it, and he deserves to catch #### for the rest of his life for having done it.
   9. john_halfz Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:11 AM (#4691712)
A report from the Kern County Crime Lab states, "Josh Lueke matches this DNA" from the anal swab, tank top strap and hair of the alleged victim.


Sure, maybe Josh and his drinking buds had documentary evidence that this drunk woman consented to some anonymous sex play. (Which likely wouldn't matter, since drunk people can't consent in CA.) Or maybe the woman didn't want to relive the experience at a trial where the defense team's case would be predicated on the idea that the victim was a promiscuous drunk.

   10. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:13 AM (#4691713)
Little people do little things. Every time Bobby Cox gets brought up around here, a handful of folks will show up to make the 'wife beater' comment.


That's funny, because in my book, people who beat the #### out of their wives are a lot lower than people who complain about things on an Internet forum. Yet you seem a lot more upset about the latter?
   11. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 05:26 AM (#4691716)
Did Lueke get convicted of this in court?


Nice try OJ.
   12. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 06:32 AM (#4691719)
Sure, maybe Josh and his drinking buds had documentary evidence that this drunk woman consented to some anonymous sex play. (Which likely wouldn't matter, since drunk people can't consent in CA.)


They can't even try to play the "we didn't know she was drunk" card because her last coherent pre-rape memory was of someone masturbating onto her while she was vomiting into a toilet.
   13. formerly dp Posted: April 23, 2014 at 08:05 AM (#4691729)
They can't even try to play the "we didn't know she was drunk" card because her last coherent pre-rape memory was of someone masturbating onto her while she was vomiting into a toilet.
That's enough for me not to click on the link. Some days you just don't want to feel worse about humanity.
   14. Long Time Listener, First Time Caller Posted: April 23, 2014 at 08:07 AM (#4691731)
Who gives a #### if the people involved in the discussion were males? Since males are significantly more likely to get murdered than females, are females opinions on murder irrelevant?


No one is saying that males' opinion is irrelevant, but putting that aside, let's treat your analogy with a seriousness it really doesn't deserve.

If we were to imagine that the majority of victims of murder were males, the majority of murderers were women, and that murders were underreported because the attitudes of females were that murder was no big deal and that usually murder victims weren't really murdered...yeah, it would be a bit unseemly for a woman to tell a man to shut up about complaining about a murderer's prominence in the public eye.

I'm hardly on the extreme end of the "rape culture" debate, but come on now.
   15. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 08:55 AM (#4691744)
(Which likely wouldn't matter, since drunk people can't consent in CA.)


I understand and sympathize with the need to prevent rape as much as possible, but this seems ludicrous. The great majority of casual sex happens while both parties are drunk, so apparently by California law the great majority of casual sex is not consensual.

I'm all for stopping rape where we can, but doing so by saying "don't get drunk" isn't feasible.
   16. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:22 AM (#4691761)
He deserves it. Don't rape someone, or should I say false imprison with violence, then expect to play a televised sport for lots of money.

If people don't like hearing it on twitter, get the #### off twitter.
   17. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:43 AM (#4691776)
"deserves" is a funny word. At what point is he just plain a different person, and no longer "deserves" the scorn? I am no more interested in defending him than others in this thread, but a small example from my workplace is that I did a thing when I was 25. I heard about it in performance reviews for at least ten years. And I finally got tired of it and asked if I was going to be listening to that accusation forever, at which point they stopped.

I was a thoroughly different guy at 35 than at 25, and it felt completely wrong to have to deal with my former self's mistakes.

I didn't rape anyone; it isn't the same intensity. But prison sentences, for example, end.
   18. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:43 AM (#4691777)
I believe in forgiveness and also that once you pay your debt to society you should be done with the matter, but I have a hard time defending his actions or getting too worked up over people expressing their thoughts regarding scum. So I am torn.

So long as people are OK that I don't feel the need to research my favorite sports teams' players, evaluate their moral and legal character and history and cheer according to my findings, I am OK with other people having different priorities in their sports enjoyment.

I also don't research or track author's, actor's, director's and so on moral and legal failings and avoid or publicly castigate them, but it is OK that some people do. And I admit I have made decisions based on various historical actions of people and companies, I just don't go out of my way to do so.

He deserves it.


Deserves go nothing to do with it.*

* I just really like that quote from the movie.
   19. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:47 AM (#4691780)
Not going to defend the guy, but it appears there was a rather quick plea bargain that gave him time-served, all of 42 days. Maybe not as clear cut a case as the headline suggests.


It's really hard to prove rape in court.
   20. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4691784)
He did it, and he deserves to catch #### for the rest of his life for having done it.

Concur 100%. He deserves a life-time ban from Baseball a lot more than any of the roiders or gamblers.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4691786)
I was a thoroughly different guy at 35 than at 25, and it felt completely wrong to have to deal with my former self's mistakes.

I didn't rape anyone; it isn't the same intensity. But prison sentences, for example, end.


If we were talking about burglary or car theft, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

But, his victim may never get over it. I have no problem with someone who committed a vile crime like this bearing the stigma his whole life. His victim is almost certainly still dealing with this trauma.
   22. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:55 AM (#4691788)
This is all news to Jack Zduriencik.
   23. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:55 AM (#4691789)
Nice to see that the noble concepts of forgiveness, mercy, rehabilitation, and the potential growth of souls are alive and well!!!

And that zeal and vindictiveness are on the wane!!!!!

   24. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:56 AM (#4691790)
Topics like this are when Dostoevsky is both a great help and no help at all.
   25. winnipegwhip Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:56 AM (#4691792)
The following is a personal message I got from a Steelers fan that defended Ben Roethlisberger. I do not share the viewpoints in any way but I think it sums up how a lot of us feel about their sports teams and the players upon it.

I`m a Steelers fan, not a fan of any particular player. Put Hitler or Manson in black-n-gold, and I`m fine, as long as we`re winning titles.
Ben is a victim of the electronic age. Paul Hornug, Bobby Layne, Mickey Mantle, hell, even Babe Ruth were all drunken whore mongers. It just didn`t become common knowledge in a matter of minutes.
Would I let him near my daughter or niece? #### no. We`ve all made mistakes. I`ve lost count of all the things I`ve done that I`m ashamed of. Thankfully, life (and God) have granted me a 2nd chance, and I like to think I`m making good on it. I hope Big Ben can do the same.
As far as the talk show callers, saying what a jerk he is in public, the jury`s still out. We`ve had one personal interaction with Ben, and he made my son feel like a king. What more could a father ask? I`ve no personal knowledge or proof of anything else.
Lastly, I waited 20 years for a franchise quarterback. They don`t come around every day/year/decade. I`m not ready to throw that away.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 09:59 AM (#4691798)
Nice to see that the noble concepts of forgiveness, mercy, rehabilitation, and the potential growth of souls are alive and well!!!

Forgiveness and mercy doesn't mean that you are free of all consequences for your actions. A victim can forgive a criminal, but he still has to do his jail time.

I think 42 days time served is pretty merciful for what Luecke did. Hell 42 days for any felony is a gift.
   27. GregD Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:02 AM (#4691801)
What more could a father ask?
Egad is this the wrong question. A father shouldn't teach his son to venerate a rapist. Cheering for a team is one thing. But taking your kid to meet Ben R and then sharing the special memory of how nice Ben R was? That's just awful parenting.
   28. Blastin Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:03 AM (#4691802)
It's at the point where when I see his name I'm like, "Wait, isn't that the guy who... no, must be a different guy since they stopped bringing it up." But, yeah, when people say PED users are a "blight on the game," but guys like this, meh, whatever? Priorities, man.

They colluded one of the best players of all time out of the game when he was still crushing everything, but they just have to let a middling middle reliever keep going.
   29. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:04 AM (#4691803)
I generally have no patience for the "Ahem, you mean WIFE-BEATER Bobby Cox won his 897th game as Braves manager" school of sanctimony, but the Lueke situation seems unusually bad.
   30. Blastin Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:04 AM (#4691806)
I`ve no personal knowledge


Well, that's clearly the end of the story. Anyone he has met and was nice could never have committed a crime because he wasn't present.
   31. Blastin Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:06 AM (#4691807)
The issue is that it's often treated like some personal failing he has to struggle with. This is not Josh Hamilton and his demons. He did a thing to someone else in an especially vile way. He's not smoking crack.
   32. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4691810)
Forgiveness and mercy doesn't mean that you are free of all consequences for your actions.

I don't remember seeing that suggestion anywhere.

What I do remember seeing is things like, "He did it, and he deserves to catch #### for the rest of his life for having done it." That doesn't strike me as particularly forgiving or merciful.
   33. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:12 AM (#4691812)
What I do remember seeing is things like, "He did it, and he deserves to catch #### for the rest of his life for having done it." That doesn't strike me as particularly forgiving or merciful.


Why is Lueke intrinsically deserving of forgiveness and/or mercy?

Those things aren't some kind of obligation. They're freely given or withheld, by personal choice. And in this case, I'm choosing to withhold them.
   34. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:16 AM (#4691817)
Why is Lueke intrinsically deserving of forgiveness and/or mercy?

Because he's human.

Those things aren't some kind of obligation. They're freely given or withheld, by personal choice. And in this case, I'm choosing to withhold them.

Because you're overzealous and vindictive and give too short shrift to forgiveness, mercy, and the possibility of redemption.

No one was confused that you were withholding things by some mechanism other than "personal choice." I'm not sure what that brings to the table.


   35. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM (#4691821)
EVERYTHING CAN BE FORGIVEN! RAPE, RACISM, VOTING REPUBLICAN! (Ok, that last one is unforgivable.)



And you DARE rail against "liberalism".
   36. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM (#4691822)
Why is Lueke intrinsically deserving of forgiveness and/or mercy?


Deserve, still the wrong word IMO.

Legally he did his time and is free and clear.
Religiously, well that depends on the religion and practitioner. As an atheist, means nothing to me, but forgiveness is a big deal in multiple religions.
Morally, <shrug> it depends on a bunch of factors I am not certain of enough to render judgement. I don't know what really happened. I don't really know who he was then and how he may (or may not) have changed since then.

And to me that is the real point. Personally I am not very into rendering judgement on people, especially those I will never meet or interact with in a meaningful fashion. It is just not my thing. You are free to think as you want. Which you say (and I agree with) - "They're freely given or withheld, by personal choice".

So as long you are OK with some folks not caring what he might have done in the past, I think we agree on the larger issues.
   37. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:21 AM (#4691824)
Obviously joking. But, SBB, can yo/do you forgive those who make "false charges of racism"?
   38. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:22 AM (#4691826)
Because you're overzealous and vindictive and give too short shrift to forgiveness, mercy, and the possibility of redemption.

No one was confused that you were withholding things by "personal choice."


For a brief moment SBB was almost reasonable. The moment passed. If he was self aware SBB would realize the hypocrisy of severely judging someone for the "crime" of severely judging someone.
   39. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4691828)
I can safely say that if he jerked off into her hair, before or after butt raping her, I'm not gonna be so quick to forgive, if ever.

Then again, I'm not burdened by the obligations that come with Christianity, or any other religion.
   40. Rennie's Tenet Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:26 AM (#4691835)
I read just part of the full article, and am not certain how well this fits here, but here goes: while the Doug Glanville thread was grinding on, I would look in occasionally, incredulous that it was still going over the same material. Eventually, seeing it in the hot topics was undermining everything that I was seeing on this website. I don't fully understand how Twitter works, but I can't imagine that a pavlovian "he's pitching/post now" response can be helpful to the cause it's supposed to be helping.
   41. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4691837)
If he was self aware SBB would realize the hypocrisy of severely judging someone for the "crime" of severely judging someone.

I'm not "judging" anyone. Vlad already said he was renouncing forgiveness and mercy in this matter, and I expressed my opinion of that stance.
   42. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4691840)
Can't the team just trade him to another dioceses?
   43. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:30 AM (#4691842)
Can't the team just trade him to another dioceses?

Oh no you di'int!
   44. Flynn Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:30 AM (#4691843)
My forgiveness is irrelevant. It's incredibly unlikely I'll ever meet Josh Lueke and I wasn't his victim.

That said, I would be more inclined to accept his presence in public life had he done some real time for what he did.
   45. Blastin Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4691849)
My forgiveness is irrelevant.


I think this is important. I remember having arguments about Chris Brown's many transgressions and some people kept saying "we" should forgive him. The only people who should forgive someone are those that they victimize (and those who are religious can add a religious aspect to it, which is their choice, and it's fine with me, of course). And if they get off with little punishment for something vile and violent - something that will cause lasting trauma most likely - they can and should be thought of as such unless and until they're punished.
   46. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4691851)
Because you're overzealous and vindictive and give too short shrift to forgiveness, mercy, and the possibility of redemption.


That sounds awfully judgmental. Maybe, instead of complaining about it, you should just forgive me and let it go.

:P
   47. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:40 AM (#4691855)
You're right, it's not my forgiveness he needs. So, then what? Respect? Admiration? Acceptance?
   48. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4691857)
Little people do little things. Every time Bobby Cox gets brought up around here, a handful of folks will show up to make the 'wife beater' comment.

That's funny, because in my book, people who beat the #### out of their wives are a lot lower than people who complain about things on an Internet forum. Yet you seem a lot more upset about the latter?


Too bad hitting women doesn't make athletes run faster or have more home runs. If it did, it would receive a higher level of shaming and anger than it does.
   49. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:43 AM (#4691860)
I remember having arguments about Chris Brown's many transgressions and some people kept saying "we" should forgive him. The only people who should forgive someone are those that they victimize (and those who are religious can add a religious aspect to it, which is their choice, and it's fine with me, of course).


There's a reason that criminal trials are listed in the records as The State vs. [ACCUSED's NAME HERE]: Criminal transgressions represent a wrong done to society as a whole, in that they are corrosive to the public good. That's the whole rationale behind having laws and governmentally-enforced punishments in the first place. As such, any individual member of society is affected, even if only slightly, by a criminal transgression, and by extension all those individuals thus have the moral standing to forgive or not.
   50. Tripon Posted: April 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM (#4691864)
Josh Lueke serving his time, or that he pledged to a lower charge is besides the point.

The dude raped somebody, and if somebody is going to point that out every time he pitches on the mound, that's fine with me. Why would anyone care if they hurt Lueke's feelings with a factual comment?

Edit: Its more of an indictment on the organization if anything. The Rays and everyone else who employed Lueke are basically saying that allowing a man who has raped a woman to pitch for them so they can win a ball game is more important than taking a stand and not allowing such a person to pitch for them.
   51. Dr. Vaux Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:01 AM (#4691884)
It's a different crime, but I continue to be amazed and disgusted that people don't feel the same way about Michael Vick playing in the NFL.
   52. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:02 AM (#4691888)
It's a different crime, but I continue to be amazed and disgusted that people don't feel the same way about Michael Vick playing in the NFL.

Who says I don't?
   53. Rusty Priske Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4691890)
Keep calling him out on it until he ceases having done it.
   54. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:07 AM (#4691899)
The dude raped somebody, and if somebody is going to point that out every time he pitches on the mound, that's fine with me. Why would anyone care if they hurt Lueke's feelings with a factual comment?


At the end of the day, Lueke is a rapist just as O.J. Simpson is a murderer. There's no point in pretending otherwise. I find it hard to believe people are upset that a guy who raped someone is being held responsible for that crime.
   55. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4691900)
It's a different crime, but I continue to be amazed and disgusted that people don't feel the same way about Michael Vick playing in the NFL.


A lot of the people I talk to feel exactly the same about Vick. In fact I'm often amazed that people are more bothered by Vick abusing dogs than they are about various athletes who abused humans in varying forms.
   56. joeysdadjoe Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4691901)
I guess rapists are the new market efficiency.

Seriously did the Rays get this guy for pennies on the dollar?
   57. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4691907)
I find it hard to believe people are upset that a guy who raped someone is being held responsible for that crime.

That's not what's "upsetting." Or what's happening. What's happening is that he's not being allowed to redeem himself for his crimes, and the community isn't accepting the sanction it imposed and evaluting him on his totality. (A crime, no matter how vile, does not fully define any human. With some potential exceptions, clearly not applicable here.)

That's unmerciful, vindictive, and ultimately unjust.
   58. Greg K Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:17 AM (#4691911)
Seriously did the Rays get this guy for pennies on the dollar?

I think 29 year old relievers with a career high ERA+ of 78 tend to cost about a penny anyway.

EDIT: Actually I see they got him for John Jaso, who's a pretty useful player. I think purely by play on the field I'd rather have Jaso
   59. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:17 AM (#4691912)
the community isn't accepting the sanction it imposed


A lot of people clearly do not believe that the sanction was sufficient.

With some potential exceptions, clearly not applicable here


I think for a lot of people this IS an exception and very applicable here.
   60. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4691914)
Yeah, I don't get the impression that most of the people of America are Michael Vick fans at all.

It is more than a little disturbing how many of today's athletes seem to be completely amoral sociopaths. But I guess that is what inevitably happens when a society leads people who aren't much more than children to believe that they're practically gods, and then gives them the money and the leeway to help back that notion up.
   61. joeysdadjoe Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4691915)
That's unmerciful, vindictive, and ultimately unjust.

That's how I feel about a guy who jacks off in a girls hair and ##### her in the ass after she passes out.
   62. scareduck Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4691920)
I'm all for stopping rape where we can, but doing so by saying "don't get drunk" isn't feasible.


Why not? I don't mean to say this as an excuse for Lueke -- for whom the facts of the case are quite open-and-shut, and only his victim's refusal to testify kept him from a rape conviction. But is there something wrong with observing that "don't get drunk around men you don't know" is a legitimate risk avoidance strategy?
   63. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4691923)
What's happening is that he's not being allowed to redeem himself for his crimes, and the community isn't accepting the sanction it imposed and evaluting him on his totality.


What has Lueke done to attempt to redeem himself? Throwing a baseball really hard doesn't count.
   64. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:22 AM (#4691926)
It's a different crime, but I continue to be amazed and disgusted that people don't feel the same way about Michael Vick playing in the NFL.


I could not disagree more. Dogs are not people. I couldn't care less about someone abusing an animal, especially when we have legalized hunting and permit humans to live in poverty. I am far from a ####### liberal but people that want to stand up for dogs more than women, the poor or some other shitted on class of human being are selfish scum. Add on to that a clear racial overtone - white yuppies applying their misguided morals against someone from a different community - and its the perfect storm of vile smugness. I hope Mike Vick scores a thousand touchdowns and you have to watch everyone cheer for him, over and over.

Also, Lueke is a rapist. This isn't one of those bullshit he said / she said drunken confused things. Masterbating on - and then ####### in the ass - a blacked out, vomiting woman, is abhorrent behavior. If men want to have any credibility to stand up against the "defining down" of rape, we also need to take a stand against guys engaging in what's clearly wrong.
   65. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4691929)
A lot of the people I talk to feel exactly the same about Vick. In fact I'm often amazed that people are more bothered by Vick abusing dogs than they are about various athletes who abused humans in varying forms.

Well, it is always possible people did something to at least partially deserve the abuse they get. There's no possible way those dogs deserved being tortured and killed.

A crime, no matter how vile, does not fully define any human. With some potential exceptions, clearly not applicable here.

A crime this vile puts a very high burden of proof on the criminal to show that he is not an amoral monster.

Also, forgiveness need not imply full rehabilitation in society. You can forgive a drunk driver that kills someone; that doesn't mean he should ever get his license back. You can forgive a teacher who sleeps with his/her 14 y.o. students, but they should never be allowed to teach again.
   66. bunyon Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4691930)
I find it hard to believe people are upset that a guy who raped someone is being held responsible for that crime.

That's not what's "upsetting." Or what's happening. What's happening is that he's not being allowed to redeem himself for his crimes, and the community isn't accepting the sanction it imposed and evaluting him on his totality. (A crime, no matter how vile, does not fully define any human. With some potential exceptions, clearly not applicable here.)

That's unmerciful, vindictive, and ultimately unjust.


Bull$hit. No one has lynched him. No one has raped his mother. No one has taken his personal property. He's being ostracized by a (very) small segment of the population on a fairly anonymous online forum (twitter, not this one - we're a miniscule and completely anonymous online forum) (EDIT: all while enjoying a profession generally admired and compensated very well - he is living the dream; if he can't take a little abuse he can always retire to some little town somewhere and toil anonymously for a tenth of what he's paid now). He is fully capable of redeeming himself. But he needs to get with it. To earn back any respect from me it isn't enough he leads a decent live. He needs to be a ####### saint from here on out. Giving of himself, helpful of others, honest about his failings, etc. Of course, he doesn't need my respect. I'm not suggesting we double back on his sentence or anything. There are lots of people I don't respect. Respect isn't given out wily nily.
   67. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4691931)
Dogs are not people.


But they are sentient animals, just like primates. As such, willful infliction of harm on them, or any other animal really, should be held as immoral. It is possible, you know, to despise animal abuse AND rape AND social policy that accepts human suffering and poverty. There's not a "select only one" requirement. (Also, people who willfully abuse animals are more likely to willfully abuse human animals too.)

That said, Vick served his time, which is not something that can be said of Simpson or Lueke.
   68. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:29 AM (#4691934)
I could not disagree more. Dogs are not people. I couldn't care less about someone abusing an animal, especially when we have legalized hunting and permit humans to live in poverty.


The bright line between "people" and "animals", between sentient us and dumb them, is not nearly so clear or bright as people want to pretend. Animals have feelings and sentience to various levels, it is a continuum. I am not a vegan or even vegetarian, but pretending people have "rights" and animals should have none is IMO extremely dicey and history will strongly disagree with you.

EDIT: What Rickey! said. Pepsi on the way.
   69. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:30 AM (#4691937)
I couldn't care less about someone abusing an animal

Well, you are a piece of shit, then.
   70. Steve Sparks Flying Everywhere Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:30 AM (#4691938)
I mentioned this in the Evan Reed thread and I'll post it again here. Josh Lueke and Evan Reed were teammates for 4 years (2007-2010) in the Rangers farm system. It raises some questions considering the fact that they've both been charged with similar crimes committed in a similar fashion. Is is a coincidence?
   71. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4691954)
Well, you are a piece of ####, then.


Feces everywhere has been insulted.
   72. caprules Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM (#4691958)
I could have sworn that dzop has said something like 90% of people are cannon fodder. He doesn't really have anything to offer here.
   73. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:41 AM (#4691963)
As the sign my mother has says: "I want to be the person my dog thinks I am".
   74. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:41 AM (#4691964)
I could have sworn that dzop has said something like 90% of people are cannon fodder. He doesn't really have anything to offer here.


I doubt that he has anything to offer anywhere, assuming no one has gotten around to forming a Sick Pieces of Human Garbage Club.
   75. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4691978)
But they are sentient animals, just like primates. As such, willful infliction of harm on them, or any other animal really, should be held as immoral. It is possible, you know, to despise animal abuse AND rape AND social policy that accepts human suffering and poverty. There's not a "select only one" requirement. (Also, people who willfully abuse animals are more likely to willfully abuse human animals too.)


I don't know what you mean by "sentient", because there's no evidence dogs have a consciousness. And if harming dogs is amoral, why is hunting animals who are clearly as "sentient" as dogs legal? Is it because white people like hunting and black people like dog fighting?
   76. caprules Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:59 AM (#4691983)
I doubt that he has anything to offer anywhere


He does take the time occasionally to offer actual evidence and discussion regarding Climate Change without any of the partisan nonsense that most posters need to insert.
   77. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2014 at 11:59 AM (#4691984)
I don't know what you mean by "sentient", because there's no evidence dogs have a consciousness.


Really? No evidence. OK then so long as you personally are sure it must be OK. What species on the planet Earth do you personally deign to designate as having consciousness?

Elephants? Cetaceans(of various species)? Primates (Of various species)? Parrots (and other birds like Crows)? Octopi? Is it only humans?

The more scientists study the issue the more species are are starting to be acknowledged as having various degrees of sentience.
   78. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4691988)
The plea deal in this case happened because the victim didn't want to have to testify about her rape in open court
Here's a riddle for you: What's the difference between a witness who won't testify and no witness at all?
Ans: .

In any case, the problem I have with TFA is this:
by baseball's willingness to turn a blind eye to the kind of suffering they themselves endured. It's a gesture on the part of fans who know it's unlikely Lueke will ever see his career end
...and...
The collective vitriol over his ongoing employment by the Rays
.He was sentenced to 42 days in jail when he was 24 years old. By math, I assume he'd still be 24 when he got out; I further assume based on actuarial tables that he was expected to live for many years beyond that. I assume we don't really want a social policy in which people convicted of serious crimes like rape¹ get rewarded by taxpayer support for their whole lives. As such, they need to work. This idea that we should hound employers until they fire people we don't like, therefore, is a little perturbing to me, then.

Now, to be sure that doesn't mean that they are fit for all jobs; we wouldn't hire a released child molester to work in a preschool, or an embezzler as a bookkeeper, or Sam anyplace where there are necks. But each of those are situations where the prior offense is directly related to the job. This isn't; indeed, a professional athlete presumably has less workplace contact with women than just about any other profession. Now, I am not arguing that an employer has an obligation to hire such a person, or that anyone should forgive and forget. If people want to tweet "rapist" every time they see his name, that's their right (subject to defamation law). But to demand that² the person be fired is misplaced, in my opinion. (Though of course I support their legal right to make such a demand.)



¹ Let alone people suspected or accused of, but not convicted of, them. My sentiment is the same when there are people who said something offensive in the past, and there are complaints about them being hired.
² Please, no sophistry about how they're not really demanding everything and don't have the power to demand it. I realize that (1) their demands have no legal force behind them, and (2) that they're phrasing it in the form of annoyance that he wasn't fired, rather than an imperative command to fire him. But precisely because their demands have no legal force, there's no real difference between "I want him fired" and "I can't believe he was hired/not fired. Why are you endorsing rape?"
   79. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4691990)
I don't know what you mean by "sentient", because there's no evidence dogs have a consciousness. And if harming dogs is amoral, why is hunting animals who are clearly as "sentient" as dogs legal? Is it because white people like hunting and black people like dog fighting?

Dog fighting is immoral because it's intentionally inflicting, and taking pleasure in, the suffering of the dogs.

Any hunter will tell you the objective is a clean, instant kill with one shot. A hunter that kills his prey in a slow, painful manner is immoral too. Not to mention, the hunted animals are used for food.
   80. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:06 PM (#4691993)
.He was sentenced to 42 days in jail when he was 24 years old. By math, I assume he'd still be 24 when he got out; I further assume based on actuarial tables that he was expected to live for many years beyond that. I assume we don't really want a social policy in which people convicted of serious crimes like rape¹ get rewarded by taxpayer support for their whole lives. As such, they need to work. This idea that we should hound employers until they fire people we don't like, therefore, is a little perturbing to me, then.

He needn't work in a high profile, highly lucrative career.

No one would be angry if he was a ditch-digger.
   81. caprules Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:06 PM (#4691994)
I don't know what you mean by "sentient", because there's no evidence dogs have a consciousness


I'm certainly willing to learn something today, but I'm not aware of deer, bear, big cats, etc of having the ability to bond to humans, to protect them, offer comfort.



   82. Döner Kebap Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:11 PM (#4691998)
I was appalled by Vick's activities, but was baffled by how upset most people were, since most chickens, pigs, and cows endure far worse torture to become food. Why is dog fighting worse than factory farming?

Also, noting that Leuke raped someone isn't refusing to forgive. It's refusing to forget. Probably an important distinction.
   83. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4691999)
It's a different crime, but I continue to be amazed and disgusted that people don't feel the same way about Michael Vick playing in the NFL.
Anyone who rids the world of some dogs can't be all bad.
   84. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4692001)
I don't know what you mean by "sentient", because there's no evidence dogs have a consciousness.


There are mounds of evidence of animal sentience, and domestic canines represent the leading edge there. Dogs are capable of inferring human desire from mere gesture. That indicates strongly a theory of mind internal to dogs. The idea that animals have no consciousness is simply wrong and woefully misinformed. Elephants celebrate reunions with friends they've not seen for years and mourn the passing of others. Cuttlefish are smarter than your children. This idea of human consciousness as special and unique is just religious wishcasting wrapped up in pseudoscience.
   85. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4692003)
I'm not sure why you guys are engaging with a piece of shit other than to pick it up with a plastic bag and dump it in the trash.
   86. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4692004)
Anyone who rids the world of some dogs can't be all bad.

There are a lot more people the world would be well rid of than dogs.

I'd have to say, the list of people I'd save from a burning building ahead of my cats is awfully short.
   87. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4692008)
I was appalled by Vick's activities, but was baffled by how upset most people were, since most chickens, pigs, and cows endure far worse torture to become food. Why is dog fighting worse than factory farming?


It's not. Factory farming is a moral atrocity. Vick's crime was basically being a low-class boxing fan. Poor black men bet on dog fights. Poor Hispanic men bet on #### fights. Rich white men bet on fights between poor black men and poor Hispanic men. Only one of these is "okay" in our society.
   88. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4692014)
It's not. Factory farming is a moral atrocity. Vick's crime was basically being a low-class boxing fan. Poor black men bet on dog fights. Poor Hispanic men bet on #### fights. Rich white men bet on fights between poor black men and poor Hispanic men. Only one of these is "okay" in our society.

Gee, you can't see any differences here?

i.e. 1) food is necessary (though it should be produced as humanely as possible), dog fighting isn't. 2) Human boxers do so voluntarily, the dogs don't.
   89. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4692017)
Vick's crime was basically being a low-class boxing fan.


Relevant. I ain't even mad.

Rich white men bet on fights between poor black men and poor Hispanic men.


They bet more on fights between rich black men and rich hispanic men. But please, fight the power my brother.
   90. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4692018)
Anyone who rids the world of some dogs lawyers can't be all bad.


Much truer.
   91. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4692019)
Factory farming is a moral atrocity.
Yes, we should let our food roam around freely before we kill and eat it.
   92. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM (#4692029)
Yes, we should let our food roam around freely before we kill and eat it.


If not moral, it is at least extremely natural that way.

However I think treatment of the animal before we kill it is significant. And while I am an omnivore I admit I look forward to the days of vat grown meat, when I will be able to eat steak and bacon without a likely sentient mammal having to die.
   93. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:26 PM (#4692031)
God, I've been at BBTF for ten or eleven years now and I'm finally going to use the ignore function. Ah well.
   94. Blastin Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM (#4692033)
Also, noting that Leuke raped someone isn't refusing to forgive. It's refusing to forget. Probably an important distinction.


Right.
   95. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM (#4692034)
However I think treatment of the animal before we kill it is significant. And while I am an omnivore I admit I look forward to the days of vat grown meat, when I will be able to eat steak and bacon without a likely sentient mammal having to die.

Why? The natural design of the world is for one species to eat another. Why does that bother you?

I agree we should treat the animals we eat as humanely as possible, but why would you think eating them is wrong?
   96. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:30 PM (#4692043)
1) food is necessary (though it should be produced as humanely as possible), dog fighting isn't
.

True. Which is why factory farming, along with dog fighting, should be outlawed, while human farming practices should not be. But if you think the conditions of your standard factory-farmed side of bacon are notable better than the conditions of Mike Vick's dog kennel, you're naive or stupid.

2) Human boxers do so voluntarily, the dogs don't.


The conditioning required to get a man to beat another man to a pulp for sport, and the conditioning required to get a dog to fight to the death, are not notably different either.
   97. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:32 PM (#4692046)
True. Which is why factory farming, along with dog fighting, should be outlawed, while human farming practices should not be. But if you think the conditions of your standard factory-farmed side of bacon are notable better than the conditions of Mike Vick's dog kennel, you're naive or stupid.

Even if the conditions were similar, the end goal is very different. That matters too.

The conditioning required to get a man to beat another man to a pulp for sport, and the conditioning required to get a dog to fight to the death, are not notably different either.

Again, one is a voluntary activity. And, from what I've observed of the world, many men are perfectly happy beating the pulp out of each other for no reason in particular.
   98. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:35 PM (#4692050)
As for forgiving Lueke his crime, first I don't think I'm the right person to decide if he should be forgiven. Ask the woman he raped. Second, until I'm shown some hard evidence that he is actually repentant I don't see where society at large should consider forgiveness. Again, I ask, what has Lueke done to atone for his raping of a woman?
   99. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:41 PM (#4692061)
As for forgiving Lueke his crime, first I don't think I'm the right person to decide if he should be forgiven. Ask the woman he raped. Second, until I'm shown some hard evidence that he is actually repentant I don't see where society at large should consider forgiveness. Again, I ask, what has Lueke done to atone for his raping of a woman?

Concur
   100. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 23, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4692070)
Even if the conditions were similar, the end goal is very different. That matters too.


Not really.
Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
tshipman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJULY 31 2014 OMNICHATTER/TRADE DEADLINE CHATTER
(189 - 3:45pm, Jul 31)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3900 - 3:40pm, Jul 31)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogA's Acquire Lester, Gomes For Cespedes
(121 - 3:40pm, Jul 31)
Last: TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser

NewsblogRed Sox trade rumors: 'Very good chance' John Lackey and Jon Lester are traded - Over the Monster
(90 - 3:36pm, Jul 31)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(151 - 3:29pm, Jul 31)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogAthletics, Twins Swap Tommy Milone, Sam Fuld
(14 - 3:25pm, Jul 31)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogHardball Talk: Calcaterra: Nationals-Orioles TV Money Dispute about to Explode
(13 - 3:25pm, Jul 31)
Last: I am Ted F'ing Williams

NewsblogCardinals Acquire John Lackey
(84 - 3:21pm, Jul 31)
Last: esseff

NewsblogSOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(178 - 2:56pm, Jul 31)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-31-2014
(16 - 2:39pm, Jul 31)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1049 - 2:33pm, Jul 31)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogDifference of opinion on baseball stats as Derek Jeter climbs all-time hits list
(17 - 2:19pm, Jul 31)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogWhy the Mets Are Right to Save the New York State Pavilion
(11 - 2:12pm, Jul 31)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(543 - 1:57pm, Jul 31)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-30-2014
(25 - 1:43pm, Jul 31)
Last: RMc's desperate, often sordid world

Page rendered in 0.8526 seconds
52 querie(s) executed