Should we be shamed publically for what we say in private?


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 487 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

"1/8/14

The NBA fined J.R. Smith (NY) $50,000 for "recurring instances of
unsportsmanlike conduct." Smith untied Shawn Marion's (Dal) shoe during
Sunday's Dal-NY game and (after being warned by the NBA to stop) tried to
untie Greg Monroe's (Det) shoe during Tuesday's NY-Det game."

This one's funny though.

OMG OMG OMG, there needs to be a Pathfinder "I'm Untying His Shoe" feat right now!


pres man wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
What exactly is the reasoning for letting him off the hook?
When you say, "letting him off the hook", what do you mean by that?

I'm trying to get a better idea of what Spanky means. So, a clarification on my part is kinda moot, since I'm just asking questions to see what exactly his point is.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
pres man wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
What exactly is the reasoning for letting him off the hook?
When you say, "letting him off the hook", what do you mean by that?

see Ruben Patterson, personal life

Kyle Lowry hits a female official with a basketball; does some anger management classes.

If you look on Wikipedia, now he's a head coach.

see personal life: reckless endangerment of a child gets you a 1 game suspension.

I guess, when you say "hook," I'm perplexed by the inference that there is one? Or, is Sterling a unique and special case because......meh? When did the NBA begin worrying about their image? Last Thursday?

if you are seriously equating this mans bigotry with these peoples stupidity, I dont know what to say.a


Terquem wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

"1/8/14

The NBA fined J.R. Smith (NY) $50,000 for "recurring instances of
unsportsmanlike conduct." Smith untied Shawn Marion's (Dal) shoe during
Sunday's Dal-NY game and (after being warned by the NBA to stop) tried to
untie Greg Monroe's (Det) shoe during Tuesday's NY-Det game."

This one's funny though.

OMG OMG OMG, there needs to be a Pathfinder "I'm Untying His Shoe" feat right now!

There already is.

Well, that's the maneuver, there are multiple feats related to it.


Irontruth wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
pres man wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
What exactly is the reasoning for letting him off the hook?
When you say, "letting him off the hook", what do you mean by that?

see Ruben Patterson, personal life

Kyle Lowry hits a female official with a basketball; does some anger management classes.

If you look on Wikipedia, now he's a head coach.

see personal life: reckless endangerment of a child gets you a 1 game suspension.

I guess, when you say "hook," I'm perplexed by the inference that there is one? Or, is Sterling a unique and special case because......meh? When did the NBA begin worrying about their image? Last Thursday?

What exactly is your point?

Are you saying that because other people are also bad, Donald Sterling deserves a pass?

How do exactly do your links relate to Donald Sterling?

Are you saying his punishment is excessive? That he's right and black people shouldn't be promoted publicly? What's your point?

What he is saying is that the NBA is being inconsistent with its past punishments for inappropriate behavior and that in this case the punishment does not fit the offense. They are basically throwing the book at him over something that honestly isn't that surprising. I mean, its not the first, or even the second time the guy has been accused of racism.


Loss of privacy in this country is a big problem but because of technology we unfortunately have to assume that we have no privacy. Multiple entities both public and private have tabs on us at all times from our service providers to our credit card companies, every store we shop at, every website we visit, not to mention the NSA. Someone knows where we are at all times and knows what we spend our money on, what shows we watch, etc.

But none of Sterling's rights were violated. He is a part of a private organization that has the right to remove him if he is damaging their business.

This is not the same as the government taking his house or confiscating his bank account. Sterling will get paid for the Clippers. He simply won't have the continuing opportunity to be an owner in the NBA, which as I just said is an opportunity not a right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
pres man wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
What exactly is the reasoning for letting him off the hook?
When you say, "letting him off the hook", what do you mean by that?

see Ruben Patterson, personal life

Kyle Lowry hits a female official with a basketball; does some anger management classes.

If you look on Wikipedia, now he's a head coach.

see personal life: reckless endangerment of a child gets you a 1 game suspension.

I guess, when you say "hook," I'm perplexed by the inference that there is one? Or, is Sterling a unique and special case because......meh? When did the NBA begin worrying about their image? Last Thursday?

What exactly is your point?

Are you saying that because other people are also bad, Donald Sterling deserves a pass?

How do exactly do your links relate to Donald Sterling?

Are you saying his punishment is excessive? That he's right and black people shouldn't be promoted publicly? What's your point?

What he is saying is that the NBA is being inconsistent with its past punishments for inappropriate behavior and that in this case the punishment does not fit the offense. They are basically throwing the book at him over something that honestly isn't that surprising. I mean, its not the first, or even the second time the guy has been accused of racism.

So racism becomes less important if you've been accused of it before?

The more you do it, the less punishment you deserve?

Sort of like the opposite of 3 strikes laws?


Irontruth wrote:


That he's right and black people shouldn't be promoted publicly?

No.

Seriously.

I really can not see where anything I have said would even infer this.

I take umbrage at this frankly.

You need to simmer down.


I'm through.

Find an actual racist to accuse of racism.


thejeff wrote:

So racism becomes less important if you've been accused of it before?

The more you do it, the less punishment you deserve?

Sort of like the opposite of 3 strikes laws?

Good to know your putting words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that the NBA is being inconsistent with previous behavior because this time they have money on the line because people noticed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So racism becomes less important if you've been accused of it before?

The more you do it, the less punishment you deserve?

Sort of like the opposite of 3 strikes laws?

Good to know your putting words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that the NBA is being inconsistent with previous behavior because this time they have money on the line because people noticed.

So you're upset they are reacting more to an incident that affects them more?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So racism becomes less important if you've been accused of it before?

The more you do it, the less punishment you deserve?

Sort of like the opposite of 3 strikes laws?

Good to know your putting words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that the NBA is being inconsistent with previous behavior because this time they have money on the line because people noticed.

So you're upset they are reacting more to an incident that affects them more?

When did I ever say I was upset? I wholeheartedly approve of them protecting their brand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So racism becomes less important if you've been accused of it before?

The more you do it, the less punishment you deserve?

Sort of like the opposite of 3 strikes laws?

Good to know your putting words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that the NBA is being inconsistent with previous behavior because this time they have money on the line because people noticed.

Well, yeah. Never claimed the NBA to be saints. Of course they're responding to the publicity. That's the entire point.

Liberty's Edge

The NBA is responding to this in such a manner because this caused them harm, odds are good that if the NBA hadn't been directly harmed by this it wouldn't have responded as harshly as it has. If you consider that inconsistent, well, that's your choice, they're not trying to make some kind of moral stand, they're trying to protect their own pocket books, that's what rich people do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
pres man wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
What exactly is the reasoning for letting him off the hook?
When you say, "letting him off the hook", what do you mean by that?

see Ruben Patterson, personal life

Kyle Lowry hits a female official with a basketball; does some anger management classes.

If you look on Wikipedia, now he's a head coach.

see personal life: reckless endangerment of a child gets you a 1 game suspension.

I guess, when you say "hook," I'm perplexed by the inference that there is one? Or, is Sterling a unique and special case because......meh? When did the NBA begin worrying about their image? Last Thursday?

if you are seriously equating this mans bigotry with these peoples stupidity, I dont know what to say.a

That is probably a good thing (not knowing what to say), otherwise you might suggest that making racist comments in the privacy of one's home is worse than verbally and PHYSICALLY assaulting a woman.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?

If this were to happen, one of the following to proceede:

A: A great defense attorney would get the tape quashed and all other evidence collected because the state knew the location of the murder from watching the tape.

B: A good defense attorney would get the tape quashed and try to get the other stuff quashed but would fail.

C: A terrible defense attorney would try to get the tape quashed and fail.

In event A it would be very difficult to convict him but he should still be prosecuted.


BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?

If this were to happen, one of the following to proceede:

A: A great defense attorney would get the tape quashed and all other evidence collected because the state knew the location of the murder from watching the tape.

B: A good defense attorney would get the tape quashed and try to get the other stuff quashed but would fail.

C: A terrible defense attorney would try to get the tape quashed and fail.

In event A it would be very difficult to convict him but he should still be prosecuted.

Are we discussing what the actual legal system of the US would do in this case? Because, as you might expect, it's very complicated, but the fact that constitutional rights only restrict government actions is relevant here as well.

The magic phrase is "the fruit of the poisoned tree" or "the exclusionary rule," and basically means that any evidence gathered based on evidence obtained in a way that violates the victim's Fourth Amendment rights is inadmissible. Since the girlfriend isn't a state official, nothing she did violated the Fourth Amendment. While her tape might be inadmissible, the tape could certainly form the basis for a request for a warrant, and anything found under that warrant would be admissible. So option B is probably the most likely.

Which again gets back to the fundamental idea that the government has to follow the Constitution, but private actors do not, and that none of Sterling's rights have been violated.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?

I suspect that for most of Sterling's defenders on this thread, it would depend on the race of the murder victim.


pres man wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
pres man wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
What exactly is the reasoning for letting him off the hook?
When you say, "letting him off the hook", what do you mean by that?

see Ruben Patterson, personal life

Kyle Lowry hits a female official with a basketball; does some anger management classes.

If you look on Wikipedia, now he's a head coach.

see personal life: reckless endangerment of a child gets you a 1 game suspension.

I guess, when you say "hook," I'm perplexed by the inference that there is one? Or, is Sterling a unique and special case because......meh? When did the NBA begin worrying about their image? Last Thursday?

if you are seriously equating this mans bigotry with these peoples stupidity, I dont know what to say.a

That is probably a good thing (not knowing what to say), otherwise you might suggest that making racist comments in the privacy of one's home is worse than verbally and PHYSICALLY assaulting a woman.

Or physically assaulting ANYONE. Man or Woman.


pres man wrote:

see Ruben Patterson, personal life

Kyle Lowry hits a female official with a basketball; does some anger management classes.

If you look on Wikipedia, now he's a head coach.

see personal life: reckless endangerment of a child gets you a 1 game suspension.

I guess, when you say "hook," I'm perplexed by the inference that there is one? Or, is Sterling a unique and special case because......meh? When did the NBA begin worrying about their image? Last Thursday?

I will respond to this with a quote from a famous book:

Luke 12:48 wrote:
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

In modern English, if you place yourself in a position of power and wealth you should expect to he held to a higher standard than those who work for you.

Further, stop deluding your self that the NBA's actions were driven solely by outrage in Mr. Sterling's beliefs--regardless of what Adam Silver said in his press conference. Mr. Sterling was not suspended until after EVERY major sponsor of the Clippers withdrew their support and players from all six playoff teams scheduled to play the night of the press conference threatened to boycott the games. The potential of absolute financial ruin played a heavy role in Mr. Silver's decision.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
lets avoid absolutes. I hear only the sith deal in those....

fear is the mindkiller...

Oops, wrong universe.


Carl Hanson wrote:


Further, stop deluding your self that the NBA's actions were driven solely my outrage in Mr. Sterling's beliefs--regardless of what Adam Silver said in his press conference. Mr. Sterling was not suspended until after EVERY major sponsor of the Clippers withdrew their support and players from all six playoff teams scheduled to play the night of the press conference threatened to boycott the games. The potential of absolute financial ruin played a heavy role in Mr. Silver's decision.

This is unfortunately true. I wish major companies were more principled. I also wish I had a fairy dragon pet that pooped Reese's pieces. I suspect I'll get the second before I get the first.

It's also, however, not really relevant either to the morality of the case or the legality of the case. Even in actual legal cases, the notion of de minimus applies, the idea that some disputes or some actions simply aren't important enough to warrant paying attention to. AT&T just isn't going to reduce your bill because your phone service was out for six minutes last night. The local PUC isn't going to force them to, and the relevant court will almost certainly refuse to hear your case.

The fact that the NBA has failed to act in previous situations where it was not (in their opinion) necessary, or that they have handed down lesser punishments when it was not (in their opinion) necessary to escalate doesn't prevent them from doing as they see fit now.


Quoted the wrong person Carl.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Or physically assaulting ANYONE. Man or Woman.

True that. I was just referencing the "female official".


pres man wrote:
Quoted the wrong person Carl.

Apologies. Unraveling nested quotes is apparently trickier than it looks.


Carl Hanson wrote:
pres man wrote:
Quoted the wrong person Carl.
Apologies. Unraveling nested quotes is apparently trickier than it looks.

No harm, no foul.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?

If this were to happen, one of the following to proceede:

A: A great defense attorney would get the tape quashed and all other evidence collected because the state knew the location of the murder from watching the tape.

B: A good defense attorney would get the tape quashed and try to get the other stuff quashed but would fail.

C: A terrible defense attorney would try to get the tape quashed and fail.

In event A it would be very difficult to convict him but he should still be prosecuted.

Are we discussing what the actual legal system of the US would do in this case? Because, as you might expect, it's very complicated, but the fact that constitutional rights only restrict government actions is relevant here as well.

The magic phrase is "the fruit of the poisoned tree" or "the exclusionary rule," and basically means that any evidence gathered based on evidence obtained in a way that violates the victim's Fourth Amendment rights is inadmissible. Since the girlfriend isn't a state official, nothing she did violated the Fourth Amendment. While her tape might be inadmissible, the tape could certainly form the basis for a request for a warrant, and anything found under that warrant would be admissible. So option B is probably the most likely.

Which again gets back to the fundamental idea that the government has to follow the Constitution, but private actors do not, and that none of Sterling's rights have been violated.

I agree that most defense attorney's are "good."

Regardless of what is "right" a great attorney is capable of accomplishing more benefit for their client.

Edit: also, in that particular response I wasn't discussing Sterling, but rather discussing a hypothetical posed in the post I quoted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

I'm through.

Find an actual racist to accuse of racism.

I wasn't accusing you of racism. I was just listing possible conclusions that your statement could lead to. Feel free to reject my proposals and clarify.

I'm still not sure what you were trying to get at. You seemed to be full of indignation at what has happened to Sterling and I really just don't get it. I don't think there's anything about him that's defensible and he got what he deserves.

What other people do and the punishments they get are a separate issue.

Lets take a hypothetical.

I steal your bike. You catch me after the fact. In my defense, I point out that Joe has been siphoning gas from your car for years. The bike is only worth $100, but over $4,000 in gas has gone missing. Are you going to let me keep the bike?


Irontruth wrote:


I steal your bike. You catch me after the fact. In my defense, I point out that Joe has been siphoning gas from your car for years. The bike is only worth $100, but over $4,000 in gas has gone missing. Are you going to let me keep the bike?

This. "But others have done worse" is no defense whatsoever. Except perhaps in broken legal systems that allow highly-paid lawyers to twist people's perceptions of reality.

If anything, accepting the former as being okay is a step towards accepting perhaps the latter is too. Sometimes you even have to make that stand against the lesser offense first, in order to build up a later attack against the greater ones. Sometimes you have to start by winning the smaller battle.


Irontruth wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

I'm through.

Find an actual racist to accuse of racism.

I wasn't accusing you of racism. I was just listing possible conclusions that your statement could lead to. Feel free to reject my proposals and clarify.

I'm still not sure what you were trying to get at. You seemed to be full of indignation at what has happened to Sterling and I really just don't get it. I don't think there's anything about him that's defensible and he got what he deserves.

What other people do and the punishments they get are a separate issue.

Lets take a hypothetical.

I steal your bike. You catch me after the fact. In my defense, I point out that Joe has been siphoning gas from your car for years. The bike is only worth $100, but over $4,000 in gas has gone missing. Are you going to let me keep the bike?

The problem with your analogy is that you are describing two situations where harm has been innately done. If you don't tell anyone that your bike has been stolen, you have still been harmed by it. Likewise, if you didn't know your gas was getting robbed, you are still harmed by it. Ignorance doesn't protect you from the harm.

On the other hand, if nobody ever learned about this guy's private conversations, nobody would ever been harmed. The only harm done by the conversations is the public reaction to them becoming public.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

See, your doing the thing of analyzing and nitpicking the analogy. An analogy is not a perfect representation, by nature. If it was a perfect representation, we wouldn't call it an analogy.

Instead of nitpicking the analogy, you should instead try to understand the point I'm making. I'm making the analogy to clarify something, not present a hypothetical that perfectly represents the situation.

Here's the logic definition of analogy:

Quote:
a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

I bolded the operative portion. Notice it says "certain respect", not "in all respects". An analogy isn't intended to be a perfect facsimile, but rather highlight one portion.

My analogy isn't intended to highlight who was harmed. Rather, my analogy is to highlight that Spanky's comments so far are that Sterling shouldn't be punished because other people have also done bad things. Or at least, that is what it sounds like. He is certainly welcome to clarify and correct that if it's wrong though. I'm just pointing out how it reads to me.


meatrace wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Wait, does this mean that if you steal money from someone, you're denying them free speech?

But, my stealing their money is EXPRESSING my free speech.

It's part of a traveling performance art exhibit called "Give me everything in your wallet and the iPhone too, or grandma here gets it between the eyes."

Do you ever give encores?


Looks like the NBA should reverse everything and exonerate Sterling, because he's not racist. Sure, he said all those things and should apologize, but he didn't say them because he's racist. And she should know, because she's his "right hand arm man." o_O

Shadow Lodge

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?

The difference is that murder is illegal. Having opinions that aren't PC isn't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?
The difference is that murder is illegal. Having opinions that aren't PC isn't.

Could you link to the post where someone suggested that un-PC opinions should be illegal?

Cause I haven't noticed anyone say they should be. You're pointing out a difference that no one disagrees with.

In fact, I'm pretty sure no one has said he isn't allowed to have those opinion, nor should he be prevented from expressing them publicly or privately.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Since I accidentally dotted this thread, may as well be productive.

In this context, "be productive" means "post links to comics".

Shadow Lodge

Irontruth wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?
The difference is that murder is illegal. Having opinions that aren't PC isn't.

Could you link to the post where someone suggested that un-PC opinions should be illegal?

Cause I haven't noticed anyone say they should be. You're pointing out a difference that no one disagrees with.

In fact, I'm pretty sure no one has said he isn't allowed to have those opinion, nor should he be prevented from expressing them publicly or privately.

Nope. Just compared having them to murder. you don't have to look too far, I quoted it in my original reply.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, you think that the analogy was intended to compare racist remarks with murder?

I think you're doing what so many people do when they read an analogy on these boards. I even broke it down slightly just a few posts up. Instead of trying to understand the speaker/writer's point with the analogy, you've instead decided to latch onto a difference between the analogy and the topic being discussed.

The problem with that is that there are always inherent differences between an analogy and the thing being discussed. That inherent difference is actually covered in the DEFINITION of the word analogy. The fact that you managed to find a difference does not mean you've found what makes the analogy flawed, all you've done is prove that it's an analogy, not a facsimile.

Your right, murder is not the same as a racist remark. No one has made that claim. I understand that there is an analogy presented in the quoted post, but the analogy isn't about the severity of the offense, or even the legality of either offense. It's about the reporting of offenses. You ignored that part, because it doesn't support your point. The problem with that though, is that you're focusing on the differences in the analogy and not the similarity. But as I already pointed out, for it to be an analogy, there inherently HAS to be a difference. So you pointing out is actually rather pointless.

If you truly want to point out that the analogy is flawed, you would need to address it on the same level as the person who made it. Instead of focusing on the difference, focus on the similarity and point out how that similarity doesn't actually apply or reinforce the point.

I want a forum rule, that people who pick apart analogies incorrectly have their posts deleted. It's so annoying and drags the conversation into mindless tedium. Instead of trying to comprehend what a person is saying and addressing that, it shows people don't care and only want to score "points" by being "right".


Kthulhu wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?
The difference is that murder is illegal. Having opinions that aren't PC isn't.

Could you link to the post where someone suggested that un-PC opinions should be illegal?

Cause I haven't noticed anyone say they should be. You're pointing out a difference that no one disagrees with.

In fact, I'm pretty sure no one has said he isn't allowed to have those opinion, nor should he be prevented from expressing them publicly or privately.

Nope. Just compared having them to murder. you don't have to look too far, I quoted it in my original reply.

But wait, isn't murder illegal?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
The NBA is responding to this in such a manner because this caused them harm, odds are good that if the NBA hadn't been directly harmed by this it wouldn't have responded as harshly as it has. If you consider that inconsistent, well, that's your choice, they're not trying to make some kind of moral stand, they're trying to protect their own pocket books, that's what rich people do.

Actually, I think it is safe to say that that is what EVERYONE does.

Shadow Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?
The difference is that murder is illegal. Having opinions that aren't PC isn't.

Since my reply seems to have set a bug up a couple of people's asses, I'll clarify. Its my position that the original analogy is g$@#++n ridiculous and doesn't hold any f@!#ing water. I g*$~#@n f#+@ing well believe that there should be a different response to the admission of a crime ike murder than to the revelation that someone is racist (not a crime, by the way).


Kthulhu wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?
The difference is that murder is illegal. Having opinions that aren't PC isn't.
Since my reply seems to have set a bug up a couple of people's asses, I'll clarify. Its my position that the original analogy is g*+!&%n ridiculous and doesn't hold any f&@~ing water. I g*%&*%n f+!@ing well believe that there should be a different response to the admission of a crime ike murder than to the revelation that someone is racist (not a crime, by the way).

So by clarify, you meant say the same thing but with censored curse words?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is unfortunately a common idea that companies should make decisions based on anything other than economic advantage. We should be happy that companies don't because when they do people get hurt. Remember big companies aren't just faceless fat cats.

The NBA for example employees thousands of people, not just rich players, but ushers and security and venders and parking attendants and secretaries and bus drivers and ... well you get the idea. Should the NBA make decisions that hurt their profits for any reason? Do you want to tell some of those people that they just lost their jobs because the NBA makes less money? Or perhaps they should all just take a pay cut? What about the people who make or sell the things these people usually buy, groceries, cleaners, movies... whatever. Should we tell them they will also make less?

In this one respect economics is simple. Less money is less money for everyone. It might make someone feel morally superior to claim that companies should just make less money for moral reasons, but a companies job is to make money. Our economy works because that is what they do. We have jobs because that is what they do. We pay our bills and feed our families because that is what they do.

So be happy the NBA is getting rid or Sterling for economic reasons. At least in this case we can also be happy it is the morally right thing to do.

Shadow Lodge

Heil Big Brother!

Imprison the thought-criminals!


But did they.

The entire hype machine didn't actually change the sponsers in some ways...they had already been pulling out for years due to Sterling's actions (since at least 2009) only to be replaced, pull out, and then replaced.

The only difference this time is that another person who had an economic vestment collected together some players and threatened to not play. The excuse, was due to the private conversations that were released. However, the instigations were due to a buyer who was not able to buy the team.

This is where it can get tricky for the owners. CAN the NBA decide to favor one person over another in regards to buying NOT for economic reasons (as the decisions, though using it as an excuse, really was based upon his comments more than the current economic situation...any damage economically to the Clippers hit Sterling more than the NBA...and the season isn't around that much longer so most of the owners didn't have to worry about the entire Clippers boycott by others until next season...at which point if people still remembered (which notoriously people do not, or they'd have remembered the same actions from previously when Sterlings discrimination was public action)...it MIGHT hit other teams economically.

The bigger stint seems to be a PR stunt by the NBA commissioner. It should be interesting if the other owners condone blackmail if the vote is private, because if they do, I expect this will NOT be the first owner to lose their team...and actually expect people like Cuban to be in the crosshairs after that.

This is where it gets more problematic. The biggest threat was actually from a player coalition threatening their own boycotts...which interestingly to a point was led by someone who had a vested interest in buying a team that was not for sale. In that, it appears the NBA shows favoritism in forcing a sale...but one that if you look at it, economically could end up disastrous for the very owners that the commissioner wants to vote on it.

NBA is very political on this issue from an economic stand point...for the owners...politically this could be a kobayashi maru scenario...lose/lose regardless. The question is whether they want to lose by showing their own vested interests over that of public outrage...OR risk losing their teams by siding with the commissioner.


Kthulhu wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm curious. Some of the outrage seems to be coming from the fact that his mistress may have recorded the conversation without his knowledge and that he shouldn't be held accountable because it was an invasion of his privacy. A quick thought experiment if I may: What if he had murdered a person and his mistress had secretly taped it. Then, during a spat, she turned the tape over to the police. Is your position he should be immune from prosecution because his privacy had been violated?
The difference is that murder is illegal. Having opinions that aren't PC isn't.
Since my reply seems to have set a bug up a couple of people's asses, I'll clarify. Its my position that the original analogy is g~+#$#n ridiculous and doesn't hold any f@$~ing water. I g%@&&!n f%*&ing well believe that there should be a different response to the admission of a crime ike murder than to the revelation that someone is racist (not a crime, by the way).

Again, you're focusing on specifics in the analogy that are different from the situation, and not the part of the analogy that was actually being shown to be similar.

Stop focusing on the difference between murder and racism, because that isn't the point. If you insist it is the point, your wrong. I'm telling you that isn't the point. So feel free to rail against it all you like, but you're just picking something to fight over that isn't actually the point. I'm sure you'll gloss over this and refuse to acknowledge what I'm saying and focus on the aspect of murder in this, instead of what is actually the point.

Murder is not the focus of the analogy. So stop focusing on it.

Shadow Lodge

Except, to me, the analogy is inherently flawed because of the disparity in the severity of the offenses. Do I think that the woman should have revealed the tape over him being a racist? No, I don't. If it had been him admitting to a murder? Yes, I would support her releasing the tape.


A mother accidentally records her 18 year old son masturbating, are you saying it is wrong for her to sell it to a porn company to make money. I mean if she accidentally recorded him raping a girl, is she not suppose to turn it over to the cops?

See analogies are fun.

301 to 350 of 487 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Should we be shamed publically for what we say in private? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.