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.

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

How do you know what words mean?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Sentrius

Fort Rozz

Member since Jun 2011

64757 posts

Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:56 pm to ballscaster

quote:
Either way, there is no moral reason to fight against those wanting the name to change.

Yes, there is when you have politicians expressing directly or indirectly wanting to intervene with the force of the state and violate the property rights of the NFL and Mr. Snyder's rights as the owner of the franchise to force a name change.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by DelU249

Austria

Member since Dec 2010

77625 posts

Posted on 8/21/14 at 5:00 pm to ballscaster

quote:
I know you aren't.

yeah, because it isn't a requirement.

quote:
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.

but it isn't morally justifiable. You really talk in circles. Secondly, while he certainly seems to have a some sentimentality for the name...there are two reasons he's not changing it, and on the pie chart sentimentality is pretty hard to see.

quote:
because any layman who throws a tantrum in opposition to a name change is contradicting himself

again, you either think like me or you're a layman...

and also that's not true

quote:
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

if that person thinks it is benign then in their view you have no moral reason. additionally, they don't need moral justification to "fight" or even oppose it. :lol:

you're really making it difficult to take you seriously. This sounds like the kind of shite a first year college student, majoring in philosophy and high out of his mind would write

moral reasoning isn't a requirement to justifiably oppose something or fight to keep something...god knows what fricking shite people may think. The variable reasons are endless. Moreover, if you think the name is harmless that doesn't mean you think it isn't important...jesus Christ :lol:

now we're so far off topic, but it was entertaining so