| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, apparently it's not just a tinfoil hat.
But I must say, nice tinfoil leisure suit as well. Matches your socks. And your tie. And your cuff-links. Do you do all your shopping at Reynolds Aluminum?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you missed the first post on what the actual controversy is.People think it's about his racism...but really, it's not. It's about the invasion of privacy and if blackmail and extortion are viable means to use as excuses to take something from someone.
His racism was pretty well known...I mean...you don't get prosecuted for discrimination in court normally and have it kept a secret. You don't have your coaches refuse to do what you ask when you ask them to treat your players as slaves and have it as a no news item.
(and a lot of other stuff that has brought me up to speed on this issue, thank you ;) )
Honestly though, the only thing that does is make me think this is all long overdue, and be glad that something, anything, brought it this far.
I mean...you'd have to have your head buried in the sand not to know this guys history of racism and discrimination...OR (and I think this is more likely) people had no idea who Sterling was until Magic Johnson brought up his infuriation over the tapes...(who incidentally [or not] is friends with the girl who released them for not being paid off) which coalitioned the players of the team and others in the NBA.
Worse, I have my head buried in the UK's sand - I couldn't name more than three or four sports personalities from over here, let alone people from a sport I don't follow from over in another country ;)
Which brings another point. You didn't care about the much higher profile cases of discrimination, the more amounts of people that he was racist to previously, nor the ACTUAL crimes he committed, but when it comes to his private comments which are far less hurtful...you THEN take offense?
I'd have cared if I'd known about them. I didn't. This whole thing gave it enough publicity to register on my radar. I spend my time glued to a computer screen alternating between writing and coding. Seriously. I hadn't even heard of the guy (or half the other names involved) until this thing started appearing on the front page of news sites.
People are letting their emotional response rather than the right/wrong response gain ground on this.However, when you look at the situation...this was never a case regarding racism...but the powers of the NBA.
Honestly, I haven't seen much more than the "Racist guy gets taped, is it right to judge him based on invasion of privacy?" issue (to which my answer is an empathic "He can being judged on the roll of a d6 for all I care, I'm just happy he's getting judged."
Taking the bigger picture into account, then maybe there's some other things that need looking into once this is all over, but I'm quite happy for all that to wait until Sterling's had a few libraries full of books thrown at him, and I guess I couldn't care less what the justification for the throwing of those books is or whether it's fair or right. I just see the issues of "racist guy" and "meh, something something basketball" - only one of those matters enough to me for me to care what the outcome is, I'm afraid to say.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the team owner's name is Sterling and the commissioner's name is Silver? I thought I must have gotten it wrong, but it really is Sterling v. Silver? This is the sort of once in a generation awesome I have lived all my long hoping to witness! :P
(Probably not the first time the joke's been told, but, c'mon, I had to.)
The blackmail was already claimed. So was the extortion.
No court case has been brought yet. It would be useless anyways, she was getting money from him, otherwise she's broke. He's not getting any money through that avenue even if he brings in a lawsuit, but the blackmail and extortion were already claimed.
Any other questions in regards to that?
The point is that the actual event occurring is a vote on whether to force a sale by the NBA or not.
The Commissioner has already slapped that punishment, but it can't be done unless the Owners vote for the affirmative.
The ban itself and the force sale was the news PR...however the actual events that decide whether Sterling is actually banned and cannot own the team is where the actual conflict is...
There probably won't be any lawsuits until that vote takes place...as the NBA doesn't control Sterling anymore than it controls anyone else.
AS for people claiming they've read the NBA constitution...errr...supposedly NO ONE has that isn't privy to it as it's not open to public consumption. However, the comments from multiple sources (Cuban, prior coaches and managers) have been quite open on their concerns on the REAL issue as opposed to what some emotional comments have been.
They support the Commissioner taking action, but everyone that has made an indepth comment on it have looked at it as a slippery slope due to the powers being granted. It sounds like they are all nervous about handing the Commissioner this ability (from what they say, it's never been done before...and this is FAR above any power grab or ability ever enabled by the commissioner).
AS I've stated repeatedly, for them it's lose/lose...and that boils down to why it's a very hard thing to make one's mind about.
It's not about the racism...none of them are condoning that, I'm not either.
Trying to confuse the issue between that and what's actually at stake is where the problems come in. If it was merely a racism thing, this would be done already and the vote taken and done.
There's FAR more at stake than that, and the owners know this. It's not a clear cut thing...it's more of...how much power are they willing to hand over to a man...vs. how bad will the PR be if they don't.
The problem they have is nothing to do with condemning Sterling for discrimination...that's not even an issue.
The problem is if the punishment meets the crime (aka...the offense) and the methods are acceptable. This is big (once again, look up Cuban to see WHY he may be concerned as why this could come back and bite him in the arse if this passes), as if Sterling can be stripped for things that were blackmailed him due to statements made in private...ANY of them could be as well...and it isn't necessarily restricted ONLY to racism (see Cuban again on what may apply to him).
It really does get into privacy and what the NBA commissioner should be allowed or not allowed to take into effect.
It's ALL about the politics. People think that it's about racism, but in truth...how can it be. Sterling has been publically racist and it's been known by the NBA and anyone who cared for over a decade!!!!
Now it's known by people who didn't care before, but do care now. And, most importantly, that group is so large that advertisers are worried about the association and many decided it wasn't worth it, prompting the NBA to take action to limit the association and win back consumer/advertiser confidence.
I'm not sure how you can say this isn't about racism when a slew of advertiser's were running for the hills and the NBA was tripping over itself to condemn the remarks.
Once again, you really don't want this to be at all about racism. Why is that, GreyWolfLord?
|
The blackmail was already claimed. So was the extortion.
Links to support this? If this is indeed the case, then I missed it and would really like to be enlightened.
No court case has been brought yet. It would be useless anyways, she was getting money from him, otherwise she's broke. He's not getting any money through that avenue even if he brings in a lawsuit, but the blackmail and extortion were already claimed.
As both are criminal charges, not civil, I would really like to see supporting evidence to the claims of there being blackmail and/or extortion.
Any other questions in regards to that?
Links? (couldn't resist)
some other stuff ...
GWL, you have shifted what the "actual issue" is several times (as others have pointed out). At this point, I am having a hard time taking any of your arguments seriously as I am certain the "actual issue" will change yet again.
Never mind the fact that there are, in fact, multiple issues, not just a single one. These include:
1) should he be punished for what he said in private after it became public?
2) is the way the information became public a violation of his right to privacy?
and maybe:
3) is there a conspiracy against Sterling to force a sale to Magic Johnson and friends? (OK, this one is not serious ... I mean come on, really? Might as well blame the fluoride in the water and public school systems indoctrinating today's youth with the liberal agenda while you're at it.)
4) does the NBA commissioner have too much power? (not convinced this is really an issue ... but you seem to be vehemently supporting this as "the issue" so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and list it.)
Bottom line is this. The subject line of this thread, the thread you created, states the topic as "Should we be shamed publically for what we say in private?" ... now if folks decided to focus on the question you asked, why the hell are you getting all riled up and claiming we're all missing the point?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Advertisers pulled out already...that's actually old news...like YEARS old.
They then were replaced, pulled out again, and were replaced. It may give the public the idea that they have more power then they do, but in reality, currently and at this point, with the end of season here...the advertising doesn't matter right now anyways. It's a non-issue currently.
And, as it does every year with Sterling, they HAVE ALWAYS gone away like this. You want a desertion of advertisers...look no further than when the US federal govt. tried prosecuting Sterling for a crime. That actually in some ways was a bigger story.
Basically, thinking this is going to be about racism is simply public hype and the media cooperating with the people who said they would do this unless Sterling paid up.
It isn't that I don't want it to be about racism so much as that's already a done deal. It's done and over. We already know he's scum...and far more.
If you read my original post, that had NOTHING to do with my difficulties except to maybe justify that Sterling is getting what he deserves. So it's a major factor, but it's not the actual issue.
Unlike Krensky, who basically has no idea what he's talking about, this is about something far more involved than simple racism.
No one in the league is condoning racism, the problem are those who are trying to pressure them into hurting their interest and the league by saying it IS racism...that could be a point.
In fact, though racism is the excuse being used for the actions...the bigger matter is the slippery slope mentioned by any owner that actually has spoken on the matter in depth. They aren't worried about a punishment being met out due to the discriminatory and racist attutudes...which were FAR better documented prior to this incident than anything that came out.
What they are concerned about, and what the moral dilemma is regarding is the actual action the commissioner has done. Unlike many who think it's spelled out in the NBA Constitution (which is not public...by the way), apparently they do NOT feel this is a power granted to him without their approval. Thus there has to be a vote by the rest of the owners of the league. The problem is that this is a grant of powers. IF they grant the powers to the Commissioner to be able to force a sale and other actions simply by using an excuse such as racism as spoken in private...what are the ramifications down the road.
Cuban expressed it well...in that he approves that the Commissioner has taken action and support is...however...this is a "slippery slope." To take someone's private conversations as justification rather than what has been done in public...is a VERY dangerous slope to take.
Furthermore, the commissioner has NEVER had the power to do this before to this degree, if they approve it, it is very likely that he will retain the power and be able to do it to anyone of the owners.
The fear is that this isn't just going to be restricted to racists like Sterling in the future if they approve it. This entire PR stunt has been motivated by a PR move by the media and a bunch of concerned buyers. If a bunch of people want to buy a team that's not for sale...if they open the door that all they have to do is do a PR slam and base it off what some may call hearsay (hearsay doesn't mean it is not real, but that it would not be acceptable as evidence in a court of law), that would enable MANY of them to lose their teams in the future.
AKA...by applying this to Sterling, the exact same actions can be taken against any of them. Seeing that comments by Cuban in the past could be seen as discriminatory towards some groups...and not just Cuban, but several of the owners...this is a Valid fear.
So, on one hand we have this completely despicable character (as I mentioned previously). Racism is actually only ONE of MANY of his very unpleasant and despicable traits. There's a big support to get rid of him. However, it's not that he's racist that there becomes a problem, but the METHOD utilized and the backers for it that's the problem.
If the ban was simply due to prosecution of criminal activity by the Federal government (which actually was tried in the past as well I think...but Sterling sued back, and as we see, even then with the PR...he still has the clippers) that's one thing, but to have it based off private comments that were released with ulterior motives to harm the NBA itself if it didn't cooperate with the PR move?
That's a LOT more tricky. It's also put them in a lose/lose situation. Due to the media PR, if they vote against it, in order to retain power and control themselves...the media will paint them as supporting a racist whether they do or do not (and most do not...but the media won't paint it that way, and neither will the jilted buyers who wanted to force a sale irregardless of whether the NBA approved or not).
If they vote for it, they've just opened a hornets nest where you can probably expect a few of them to lose their teams in the exact same manner in the next decade (but not necessarily with racism as the excuse, but things such as homophobia, ageism, sexism, and other things).
That's the dilemma I've been discussing, and the one I'm not decided upon how I feel about. As I said originally, the guy is total scum (and it's not confined to simple racism, he's far worse than that), and seeing something bad happen to him isn't a terrible thing. However, if the tables were turned and the same applications were applied to me...is that something I'd be comfortable with?
I'm not so sure I would be...and to tell the truth, with what many have said on these boards, I'm pretty certain they may be all for punishing Sterling when it's focused on him, but if it were themselves...they'd probably be singing different tunes such as the world being unfair and other things.
[
Bottom line is this. The subject line of this thread, the thread you created, states the topic as "Should we be shamed publically for what we say in private?" ... now if folks...
If you read my original post, my topic is still the same, not sure why you think it's changed.
HOWEVER...I DO think this thread shows EXACTLY the fears that are affecting the moral dilemma.
As I have mentioned repeatedly, the owners don't like the guy overall and see him as a pretty despicable guy. The racism is a non-issue because it was already decided long ago.
However, even if they hate the guy, view him as racist, and would want him punished, if the vote against the NBA commissioner, the media will act just like people in the thread. It will call them racist irregardless that it wasn't racism that got them to vote against it, it was their interest in not having a similar situation forced upon themselves.
So, perhaps the thread title is not the best title, but it does point out, that it's a public action/shaming due to things Sterling said in private.
It's this matter that is of concern. If this is used as an excuse to force Sterling out, it could be used on any one of the owners as a reason to force them out.
Believe it or not, that's a pretty big deal, and a pretty major one at that.
Even with their comments that they support the commissioners actions in regards to discrimination and racism...the media will not see it that way if the vote against the measure.
They will vote against it to preserve their OWN ability and OWN teams...with nothing to do with racism...but unfortunately, just like you've seen in this thread...
People will see it as the media paints it, and the media will paint it as them simply being racist...
Which is a lose/lose situation. That really COULD lose them advertising and money...
But on the otherhand...which is better...losing money hand over fist because the media will call you a racist whether you are or are not (we're talking about team owners trying to keep the powers of the commissioner on a lower level and hence vote against the measure)...OR suddenly facing the fact that you could lose your team tomorrow due to some inerrant recording someone made yesterday...and a group of organized people who suddenly want you out.
Not a comfortable picture nor a dilemma.
In fact, this thread paints exactly that dilemma and perception even with out the media. I've stated my dilemma multiple times, and people still see it as a racist item and try to direct it to that despite the fact that I've already condemned that...and my issue isn't over whether the guy is racist or not...but because I'm undecided on the real matter that I don't see as really related to racism...I have people tossing around the hate towards me.
I expect that will be exactly the take people will have towards team owners...and it really is a lose/lose situation for them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if I'm understanding the tenets of GreyWolfLord's myriad posts, it's not about racism, it's about the rights of an individual to continue to associate with a group of people who don't want to associate with his publically-racist @ss anymore.
You know, rights of association and all that.
Because freedom.
And cos, if the NBA can do it, what's to stop the government from doing it too? (Aside from, y'know, voting and stuff, I mean.)
Hey, you know what would fix this? Sterling should rally up a militia of like-minded persons and begin armed revolt against the oppression of the NBA!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize that the NBA posted their Constitution on their media site?
It's one of the top Google results and I posted a link to it.
(Someone's going to do this, it may as well be me)
What, just their constitution? What about the rest of the character sheet?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you read my original post, my topic is still the same, not sure why you think it's changed.
Bottom line is this. The subject line of this thread, the thread you created, states the topic as "Should we be shamed publically for what we say in private?" ... now if folks...
Part of me wants to cheer, because it's like a really bad guy getting his comeuppance. At the same time, the other, more logical part of me...is saying...WTH just happened.
We took someone's private conversation that was never meant for the public, was not stated in the public, and was between two individuals for private interests...and used it to justify a major action. By approving this, I'm approving of invasion of privacy, blackmail, and extortion.
Statement of "the issue" number 1. To paraphrase, "the releasing of the material was unjustified and as such supporting action based upon it is supporting those unjustified actions".
This was countered with the explanation these are actually two separate issues: his statements (as they were now in the public arena) and the means by which they were released (and the ethical/moral/legal questions around that). As they are separate issues, the method of release is moot when discussing the reaction to the statements themselves (in other words "you can't unlearn what you learned").
Now just remember, his remarks were gathered by invasion of privacy, blackmail, and extortion.
To support the actions done to him ALSO means you support, invasion of privacy, blackmail and extortion...
Regardless of to him...or to yourselves.
That's the BIG kicker in all of this...these were not public items nor were they given for public...but were obtained through several ways which were not exactly legal...
Still sticking with the violation right to privacy trumps the public knowledge of his statements. Not to mention the bastardization of Martin Niemöller's quote (for which someone should probably have tagged your post as a Godwin moment).
You can say...ah...that's a far extreme...but really...it doesn't take much to slowly inch along that deadly post until it affects you, me, and many others.
That's what's concerning about this...this is why some have called it a slippery slope.
It's what has happened before...when they came for our fellow businessmen we said nothing, because we didn't like them...when they came for our neighbors...we said nothing...because it was not us and we didn't like them...and then they came for us...
There IS a point where free speech and freedom is protected by the government whether or not it is by the government or someone else trying to take something due to that.
Again bastardizing Martin Niemöller's words and changing "the issue" to that of freedom of speech. Which it was quickly pointed out it was not, though in retrospect I am shocked no one linked to this during that segment of the discussion ...
Actually, in these cases where it needs two party consent, it is always on the person claiming that both parties consented to provide that proof, or it didn't happen.
This is standard in business and other aspects of law. Otherwise whenever you had a criminal take a car, you'd have them get off by claiming the other person told them they could "borrow" it. They have to have proof in order to allow them to do certain things.
Two party consent is a lot like a contract, but normally easier to prove. For a phone conversation all that would be needed is to inform he other person that it is being recorded (on EVERY conversation of course) and give them the opportunity to not continue talking...or even better, get their agreement on each call vocally each time.
You don't even have to get the signature...but without some sort of evidence showing consent...there was none.
Happens all the time in criminal, business, and civil court cases. This is why it's important to document EVERYTHING.
Seeming to shift back to the right to privacy stance ...
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.
And on to the realm of conspiracy theory ...
I think the key here isn't freedom of speech, but freedom of privacy.
There are those here that feel people should NOT have privacy, and it is not an inherent right.
Others feel you have a right to privacy and the invasion of privacy is ethically and morally wrong.
And back to right to privacy ...
You want to know why I and others think you have changed what "the issue" is for the discussion? I could keep going but I think I have answered your question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heil Big Brother!
Imprison the thought-criminals!
Shouldn't this be more like:
Heil Big Brother!
Don't play basketball with the thought-criminals!
So, if I'm understanding the tenets of GreyWolfLord's myriad posts, it's not about racism, it's about the rights of an individual to continue to associate with a group of people who don't want to associate with his publically-racist @ss anymore.
You know, rights of association and all that.
Because freedom.
And cos, if the NBA can do it, what's to stop the government from doing it too? (Aside from, y'know, voting and stuff, I mean.)
Hey, you know what would fix this? Sterling should rally up a militia of like-minded persons and begin armed revolt against the oppression of the NBA!
Well, no.
It's about a power struggle between those who OWN an organization and those who GOVERN the organization.
If you have someone who is absolutely the dregs of the earth, is it okay to give them their comeuppance if it means violating the right to privacy, gaining it via someone who is using it to further blackmail and extortion, and possibly attained it through criminal acts?
However, then it's a catch 22...even if you DO find that is okay because...seriously, the person is a really bad person...what happens now that you approved it, when it's used against you.
That's the moral dilemma I outlined originally, and really don't appreciate everyone trying to paint it as a different one.
But, I also see that's why it's an even bigger dilemma for the owners. If I who pretty blatantly outlined my moral dilemma had it devolve into people only focusing on ONE aspect of the entire thing, and blaming anyone who didn't agree with that as being racist (irregardless of whether one is or isn't)...I imagine the same will be heaped upon the owners several times of magnitude greater than what's happened here.
So for the owners the moral dilemma is more complex then mine even, for theirs is do they vote at the possibility (a very real possibility) of having the same thing happen to them, possibly within the next decade or sooner, or losing money (who knows how much) because the media will lie in regards to their reasons for voting against it and call them racist (and as we see from this thread...people don't need much to encourage that...with the media behind it I imagine they WILL lose money hand over fist if they vote against it).
PS: Really guys, just look up what the owners are stating.
It's NOT just me who have remarked on this issue.
You do realize that the NBA posted their Constitution on their media site?
It's one of the top Google results and I posted a link to it.
I stand corrected. It does appear around 6 days ago that it was indeed posted.
Of course, that doesn't support the entirety of the punishments (he cannot ban, only suspend and it has to be either definite (life could be contested in court as not a defined time) or indefinite (meaning it can be overturned later), though it does back up the monetary fine.
He also cannot revoke the membership of Sterling as he has tried.
That can only be done Currently (unless turned over to the commissioner as his powers) by Owner vote, not by statement of the Commissioner.
It is this turning over of power to the commissioner and vote (expected both will be in the same vote) that has been the central part of the owners dilemma that I've been discussing in the thread.
PS: For your reading pleasure.
NBA constitution
Like MSNBC isn't a dozen times more biased.Wait, are we going to blame the government now?.Fox News Protocol requires that we shift the blame to Obama.
I think, deep down, you know that what you just said isn't true, Kthulhu. I think you know that the reality is that Fox News is in a class of its own when it comes to dubious news coverage. I think you know where your reflex to project or paint other news organizations the same shade comes from.
If you have someone who is absolutely the dregs of the earth, is it okay to give them their comeuppance if it means violating the right to privacy, gaining it via someone who is using it to further blackmail and extortion, and possibly attained it through criminal acts?
Yes. Why do we have to keep telling you this?
If your girlfriend/fiancee/wife were cheating and your best friend illicitly recorded her admitting to it and played it for you, would you give two craps about the fact that she didn't consent to the recording?
That's the moral dilemma I outlined originally, and really don't appreciate everyone trying to paint it as a different one.
We don't really appreciate many of the things you're trying to pull in this thread, either, but for some reason we're forced to put up with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have someone who is absolutely the dregs of the earth, is it okay to give them their comeuppance if it means violating the right to privacy, gaining it via someone who is using it to further blackmail and extortion, and possibly attained it through criminal acts?Yes. Why do we have to keep telling you this?
If your girlfriend/fiancee/wife were cheating and your best friend illicitly recorded her admitting to it and played it for you, would you give two craps about the fact that she didn't consent to the recording?
Don't be absurd, Scott.
GreyWolfLord would obviously be perfectly willing to allow the other person to exercise his/her right of free association, without any regard to whether or not the people with whom he/she chose to freely associate wanted to associate with him/her.
And then he'd insist that it wasn't about cheating, it was about violation of privacy rights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So everyone involved, from the owners, to the players, to the sponsers, to the fans, should deny reality just so people in positions of power don't have to be worried about saying horribly offensive things?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not much of a power struggle, really.
Sterling messed up, and Silver threw the book at him.
Who struggled?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not much of a power struggle, really.
Sterling messed up, and Silver threw the book at him.Who struggled?
GreyWolfLord apparently.
Found something that was interesting. Reading over the NBA constitution, what has transpired isn't really enough to provide an ironclad reason for the owners to vote him out. If they do vote him out, he could try and contest it, saying he didn't actually violate any of his contracts.
Something that's real interesting though, if the Clippers players don't show up to a game, say the first preseason game of next year... that would be concrete grounds to vote Sterling out as an owner. Per the NBA constitution, it's he is responsible for the team showing up (or not) and if they fail to appear for a scheduled game it's automatically grounds for voting him out.
If you have someone who is absolutely the dregs of the earth, is it okay to give them their comeuppance if it means violating the right to privacy, gaining it via someone who is using it to further blackmail and extortion, and possibly attained it through criminal acts?Yes. Why do we have to keep telling you this?
If your girlfriend/fiancee/wife were cheating and your best friend illicitly recorded her admitting to it and played it for you, would you give two craps about the fact that she didn't consent to the recording?
Don't be absurd, Scott.
GreyWolfLord would obviously be perfectly willing to allow the other person to exercise his/her right of free association, without any regard to whether or not the people with whom he/she chose to freely associate wanted to associate with him/her.
And then he'd insist that it wasn't about cheating, it was about violation of privacy rights.
You do realize that's getting into the personal insult arena. there are others as well that are probably trending in that area.
I wanted answers to something and hoped to see some other viewpoints. I thank those who had viewpoints to spread, but with people turning this particularly nasty, perhaps it's time to end this type of conversation here at least.
If you have someone who is absolutely the dregs of the earth, is it okay to give them their comeuppance if it means violating the right to privacy, gaining it via someone who is using it to further blackmail and extortion, and possibly attained it through criminal acts?Yes. Why do we have to keep telling you this?
If your girlfriend/fiancee/wife were cheating and your best friend illicitly recorded her admitting to it and played it for you, would you give two craps about the fact that she didn't consent to the recording?
Don't be absurd, Scott.
GreyWolfLord would obviously be perfectly willing to allow the other person to exercise his/her right of free association, without any regard to whether or not the people with whom he/she chose to freely associate wanted to associate with him/her.
And then he'd insist that it wasn't about cheating, it was about violation of privacy rights.
You do realize that's getting into the personal insult arena. there are others as well that are probably trending in that area.
I wanted answers to something and hoped to see some other viewpoints. I thank those who had viewpoints to spread, but with people turning this particularly nasty, perhaps it's time to end this type of conversation here at least.
I don't see it, myself, as I haven't called you names. But if you feel I have personally insulted you, please feel free to flag my comment.
Calling out your arguments as bovine excrement is hardly the same as calling you bovine excrement.
If you have someone who is absolutely the dregs of the earth, is it okay to give them their comeuppance if it means violating the right to privacy, gaining it via someone who is using it to further blackmail and extortion, and possibly attained it through criminal acts?Yes. Why do we have to keep telling you this?
If your girlfriend/fiancee/wife were cheating and your best friend illicitly recorded her admitting to it and played it for you, would you give two craps about the fact that she didn't consent to the recording?
Don't be absurd, Scott.
GreyWolfLord would obviously be perfectly willing to allow the other person to exercise his/her right of free association, without any regard to whether or not the people with whom he/she chose to freely associate wanted to associate with him/her.
And then he'd insist that it wasn't about cheating, it was about violation of privacy rights.
You do realize that's getting into the personal insult arena. there are others as well that are probably trending in that area.
I wanted answers to something and hoped to see some other viewpoints. I thank those who had viewpoints to spread, but with people turning this particularly nasty, perhaps it's time to end this type of conversation here at least.
No its not. Its taking your exact line of reasoning and applying it to a fairly accurate analogy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, GWL may be right on at least one aspect.
Perhaps it's time to end this type of conversation here at least.
We have established to my satisfaction at least that GWL is not only wrong, but obdurately so. We have established that he does not feel that Sterling should be held to the terms of the contract he signed freely. We have established that GWL feels that Sterling should have the right to associate with anyone he likes, irrespective of their wish not to associate with him. We have established that, in GWL's opinion, a single act of misfeasance on the part of a single person should forever bar anyone else from taking any action against Sterling.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
When it comes down to it, the last ditch NeoCon defense line is "You do it too!" Jon Stewart pretty much got the head of Fox News to admit they purposely adjust their slant to make up for the claimed bias of you guessed it, "liberal media".I think, deep down, you know that what you just said isn't true, Kthulhu. I think you know that the reality is that Fox News is in a class of its own when it comes to dubious news coverage. I think you know where your reflex to project or paint other news organizations the same shade comes from.Like MSNBC isn't a dozen times more biased.Wait, are we going to blame the government now?.Fox News Protocol requires that we shift the blame to Obama.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first 10 posts of that thread starts talking about rape victim blaming and not believing victims of rape. I'll pass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't stifle my Freedom of Speech!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first 10 posts of that thread starts talking about rape victim blaming and not believing victims of rape. I'll pass.Uh, no, it talks about inflating statistics. Not sure where you got the victim blaming bit. Probably another case of misreading somebody's post.
Your "conclusion" implies victim blaming, since it's the fault of those who didn't report the sexual assaults that we don't have perfect data on it, and you also seem to be saying that since we don't have perfect data we should ignore it.
Your conclusion also needlessly slanders and throws suspicion on ALL of academia which operates via grants. You say explicitly that BECAUSE someone made a statistical mistake when applying for grant money, we really know that all she cared about was the ca$sh. It's a pretty slanderous ad hom directed at someone trying to FIND OUT more about how common campus sexual assaults are, so your diatribe not only attacks her for not having perfect information but for trying to GATHER better information.
Nonetheless, I find your "points" to be typical kneejerk BS with more truthiness than truth, and I don't want this discussion to sidetrack this thread.