- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 27,482
- Reaction score
- 6,506
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
:roll:
Thanks for the intelligent response.
:roll:
Thanks for the intelligent response.
I said pretty much the exact same thing when the story broke. All the NBA has to do is cite which rule or law/by-law he broke and they can feel free to act accordingly. The best 'punishment' for him would be for Clippers fans everywhere to empty the arena for a year.The dog killer went to jail and served his time. Once Sterling serves his punishment, he too can return to whatever it is he wants to do. His options are not just a few.
1. Accept all punishment, sell the team for a Billion Bucks and head off into the sunset.
2. Fight and run the risk of losing value when the NBA decommissions his team
3. Negotiate a settlement.
4. Pay fines and accept suspension but refuse to sell.
5. Sue everyone and anyone he feels wronged him
Seems to me, DS needs no crocodile tears from the peanut gallery.
The dog killer went to jail and served his time. Once Sterling serves his punishment, he too can return to whatever it is he wants to do. His options are not just a few.
1. Accept all punishment, sell the team for a Billion Bucks and head off into the sunset.
2. Fight and run the risk of losing value when the NBA decommissions his team
3. Negotiate a settlement.
4. Pay fines and accept suspension but refuse to sell.
5. Sue everyone and anyone he feels wronged him
Seems to me, DS needs no crocodile tears from the peanut gallery.
I don't see why you think he should have "punishment." You want thought control? You want to use law and force to TRY to make people think a certain way? I think that if there are comments that hurt a particular person, then they should be able to perhaps sue him, but I don't think punishment should be enforced by the powers that be because of comments that he made which he thought were made in private.
1. I said pretty much the exact same thing when the story broke. All the NBA has to do is cite which rule or law/by-law he broke and they can feel free to act accordingly. The best 'punishment' for him would be for Clippers fans everywhere to empty the arena for a year.
2. Just dont pretend an 80 year old man making a racial comment to his 30 year old Latina girlfriend is on par with killing dogs for fun.
Simple--he is in a business which heavily markets to blacks. His stupid comments to his whore is costing people money. He will be punished.
It's got nadda to do ith me or what I believe should happen. It's what will happen.
BTW, if it was up to me, those who torture animals would be shot. ANd, that includes whose who make your bacon as well as the Vick characters who fight dogs.
That's fine and should be left to the free market, but I don't think it's right for people to go out of their way to punish a person for what he thought were private comments. It's too much like thought control and "punishing" someone because of his private thoughts.
I'm not at all comfortable with private comments coming out to be used against someone in public. But, when the cat is out of the bag, it's not possible to put it back in. Sterling's comments playing all over the airwaves hurt the NBA. He will be punished. If for no other reason than to appease those who feel slighted---they are, after all, paying customers and consumers of very expensive gym shoes.
Right, and if players decide to not play for him anymore or if fans decide to not pay to see games, then that is the free market deciding. Punishments handed down by the league are not though.
Sterling isn't being judged by his "long history."
"Meat farming" is feeding the masses. I don't equate meat farming in any way, shape or form to the horrible sport of dog fighting.
You need some coffee this morning, Tucker. You're cranky. I'm sure you know it's possible to have a difference of opinion without insulting someone.
You are still embarrassing yourself. First you want to pretend that an 80 year old man that said something in private to a scorned 30 year old girlfriend is some great atrocious crime, FAR greater than a guy who actually committed acts that involved not only training dogs to fight and kill each other but personally engaged in brutally killing dogs that didnt measure up. THEN you doubled down on your stupid comment with your moronic comments about the holocaust.
Why does it matter why he did it.
Sterling is being judged for his long history. Without his long history, the audio thing never ****ing happens.
you can ignore his long history of racism and being a piece of **** all you want, but that doesn't change reality.
"The masses" aren't fed by meat farming. The amount of meat consumed in the US is by far and away luxury level ****, not sustenance level.
Meat consumption at this level is not only unnecessary, it's pretty much pure entertainment.
Again, ignoring relaity does not alter it. Just because YOU want to view something hypocritically does not change the fact that it is hypocrisy.
Where did I insult anyone? I'm calling ignorant/hypocritical/stupid ideas, arguments, and statements what they are. If people don't like the fact that their ideas/positions are ignorant/hypocritical/stupid/etc then what they need to do is change their ideas/positions. I'm certainly not going to stop calling ignorant/hypocritical/stupid positions ignorant/hypocritical/stupid because they are too ****ing sensitive.
I guess in your fantasy world bullying a little girl and telling an adult woman in a private conversation something is the same.
I never said anything about bullying...
I was talking about a comment made by somebody and other people deciding to take offense to it when they had no place to react to it.
Stirling makes racist comments in a private conversation and is banned for life from the NBA.
Vick fights, abuses, tortures, kills dogs and is welcomed back into the NFL.
Who is worse?
I don't agree with you. If you find the prejudice of an 80+-year-old man more egregious than Michael Vick's conduct in regards to dog fighting, that's your opinion. You are entitled to that opinion...without that opinion being called hypocritical and stupid.
In your case, regarding your opinion, I would just call it wrong-headed.
Does anyone have the decency to know what they are talking about before they speak anymore
Does anyone have the decency to know what they are talking about before they speak anymore?
I'm not merely basing my assessment on his PREJUDICE. It's his actual racist behaviors.
Apparently not, Tucker. Thirty people agree with me. Five agree with you. Apparently not.
Let me try this. The recipients of his racism, verbal or action, are capable of defending themselves.
As fas as I know, Vick's victims are not....unless Vick were to fight them on equal level, in the cage.
One old man against a united front vs dogs fighting until they are maimed or dead, not to mention the bait dogs.
True story: I've been the only person who believed in evolution in a room full of dozens of people. Apparently, lots of people can believe stupid things and it doesn't make it any less stupid.
That's another thread, Tucker Case.
It's a perfect demonstration of why an appeal to popularity is fallacious reasoning.
Because we're discussing the concept of "worse person". He''s a horrible person who ONLY does positive things for personal gain.
Motive is certainly a factor in determining things. Example: Let's say I kill a man who is about to kill a bunch of children. A simple minded conclusion would be to assume I am a good person because I did this.
But let's say that I didn't really give a **** about saving the kids, but I actually just wanted to steal the guy's gun. Saving the kids wasn't even in my mind as a reason for doing the action. If that is the case, I'm still a piece of ****. The accidental fact that my actions did good play no role in altering how much of a piece of **** I am.
Ergo, his reason for the action is of paramount importance.