- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:40 pm to DelU249
quote:I know you aren't.
I'm not even sure why you think that's a criteria that must be met.
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.
Snyder's is a financial one.
quote: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.
Moreover, how you can say there isn't a moral reason without viewing morals as a specifically defined code with factual basis.
quote:How do you know what words mean?
You're a new breed - a dictionary thumper. Praise be to oxford.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:44 pm to Hester Carries
quote:
Have we got to the point where describing someones physical appearance, or acknowledging physical appearance is negative and offensive?
looks like it...better yet, if you don't agree with it...you're immoral, you're racist, you're irrational, you're illogical, you're a backwards thinker...stop it with your tantrum!
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:47 pm to Hester Carries
quote:True of every word ever derived. No offense taken can exist without context.
Here's the thing: the term Redskins is not inherently offensive.
quote:I'm not saying that your opinion is right or wrong here. I am saying that the dictionary says something that is different from your opinion, and the dictionary isn't wrong.
But it is a neutral physical description. Have we got to the point where describing someones physical appearance, or acknowledging physical appearance is negative and offensive?
quote:I've heard WAY more of you than I have of them my entire life, so you can't really assume that I'm acting as I've been taught. It's quite the opposite.
Remove all the perceptions youve been told you should have. Is calling someone a description based on their skin (redskin) different than hair (brunette) or height (the Giants) or eye color (old blue eyes)? No its not. Redskin doesnt imply anything negative.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:48 pm to Hester Carries
quote:I'd say that anything you're willing to fight for is a big deal to you. That's almost exactly what "big deal" means in this context.
My name is neither offensive or a big deal, but id fight you if you forced me to change it. Its my name.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:49 pm to The Sad Banana
Blackhawk is a person
But Indian isn't PC anymore either. Weren't they offended by that?
But Indian isn't PC anymore either. Weren't they offended by that?
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:50 pm to JG77056
I support the Redskins and I hope they stick to their guns and resist the bullying while standing strong.
This hoopla over a name is just people being offended for the sake of being offended. It's quite pathetic really and puts on display their mental midget minds.
This hoopla over a name is just people being offended for the sake of being offended. It's quite pathetic really and puts on display their mental midget minds.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:51 pm to DelU249
quote:This is willful ignorance.
looks like it...better yet, if you don't agree with it...you're immoral, you're racist, you're irrational, you're illogical, you're a backwards thinker...stop it with your tantrum!
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:54 pm to Sentrius
quote:I just want to point out that your words are more incendiary and overreactive than anything you hear from the other side. There seems to be this perception that the whiny ones in this dialogue are the ones who support the name change, and that perception is way off.
I support the Redskins and I hope they stick to their guns and resist the bullying while standing strong.
This hoopla over a name is just people being offended for the sake of being offended. It's quite pathetic really and puts on display their mental midget minds.
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.
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
Posted on 8/21/14 at 5:02 pm to Sentrius
quote:
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.
you obviously missed the part where ballscaster became supreme overlord of earth and got everyone to agree to one specific and definitive set of moral values
I will say that he has to be smoking some awesome weed.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 5:03 pm to DelU249
quote:You have an obviously poor understanding of what "layman" means, which explains to me why you have such a hard time understanding basically anything else I'm saying.
again, you either think like me or you're a layman... and also that's not true
Posted on 8/21/14 at 5:05 pm to ballscaster
quote:
more incendiary and overreactive
everything you've posted is derisive of people who don't agree with you and again, "my side is morally superior, we don't rely on incendiary language, you dim witted, cocksucking racist a-hole"
Posted on 8/21/14 at 5:08 pm to ballscaster
quote:
obviously poor understanding of what "layman" means
Please enlighten me lord oxford, prophet to the lord dictionary...save us from our sins. Even better, tell me what type of expertise or field you must work in to not be a layman on morality?
Posted on 8/21/14 at 5:09 pm to ballscaster
quote:My point is that the term "redskin" being racist is something new.
Of course not. That's what you're doing. You're telling us that our current dictionaries are all wrong because a dictionary from 29 years ago says something different.
It was never racist until people all of a sudden decided to be offended by it when the term isn't actually racist.
They see the word "skin" and it is preceded by "red" and they decided that is offensive because we are talking about skin color. And as we all know... talking about skin color is racist.
In short, the word was never racist in the past, and isn't racist now. It's not a slur of any kind. Some people just decided it's a mean word because it has to do with skin color.
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 8/21/14 at 5:09 pm to ballscaster
I've got to go, but damn. you're very entertaining
you're very entertainingPosted on 8/21/14 at 5:10 pm to DelU249
quote:No. Youre acting crazy.
Please enlighten me lord oxford, prophet to the lord dictionary...save us from our sins. Even better, tell me what type of expertise or field you must work in to not be a layman on morality?
Posted on 8/21/14 at 5:12 pm to DelU249
quote:
you obviously missed the part where ballscaster became supreme overlord of earth and got everyone to agree to one specific and definitive set of moral values
I need to read this thread further.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 5:13 pm to Sentrius
It was a good thread...it just got better. I can't help but find the irony in his last post
Page 7 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News