I'm not even sure why you think that's a criteria that must be met. Snyder's is a financial one. Moreover, how you can say there isn't a moral reason without viewing morals as a specifically defined code with factual basis. People have different moral codes. Some people do think it is a big deal. I don't and I don't have a moral justification to "fight" not am I fighting; however if I wanted to I can do so without moral justification. Lastly, while I find the idea of opposing the name that is racist to be morally justifiable, I (and many others-a majority of others) don't think it's racist which would mean I don't find your reason to be morally just.

You're a new breed - a dictionary thumper. Praise be to oxford.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by ballscaster

Member since Jun 2013

26861 posts

Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:40 pm to DelU249

quote:
I'm not even sure why you think that's a criteria that must be met.

I know you aren't.

quote:
Snyder's is a financial one.

His is a hybrid between the financial and the emotional. He grew up with the team, so he has an emotional connection to the name that has nothing to do with racism or anything in that ballpark; his stance is easy to understand on that front even before we get into the businessman part of the situation. I think he digs in his heels a little much and runs his mouth a lot more than he needs to, but I don't have a problem with his stance on the issue; I get it.

quote:
Moreover, how you can say there isn't a moral reason without viewing morals as a specifically defined code with factual basis.

I already explained this: because any layman who throws a tantrum in opposition to a name change is contradicting himself. Either the word is offensive and wrong, or it is benign. Either way, there is no moral reason to fight against those wanting the name to change.