User Tag List

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 85

Thread: The Donald Sterling mess: "what would you do?" questions

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    4,813
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bmc398 View Post
    Sorry if being forced to divest personal property for making private remarks doesn't scare you, but it sure as hell does me.
    Well, it scares you because you don't know what you're talking about and you're making faulty conclusions. If you agree to a legally binding contract you have to live with the stipulations you agreed to. That's what's going on with Sterling. It's not like if you call someone racist names in the privacy of your own home the CEO of Scottrade is going to force you sell your Scottrade account. If that does happen though I'll gladly apologize.
    “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." - Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." – Willard Romney

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,312
     Bryan770
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Labratt21 View Post
    Well, it scares you because you don't know what you're talking about and you're making faulty conclusions. If you agree to a legally binding contract you have to live with the stipulations you agreed to. That's what's going on with Sterling. It's not like if you call someone racist names in the privacy of your own home the CEO of Scottrade is going to force you sell your Scottrade account. If that does happen though I'll gladly apologize.
    Its not about how the statute is used today...its about how its used and adopted tomorrow that concerns me. I mean, we don't know what the clause being invoked is that will force Sterling to sell. Its no doubt vague as all get out. Its the slow creep of PC-ism into culture that worries me. Say something off the cuff or in private thats in jest or you don't really mean? Too late....the media is out for blood and everybody wants to see you burn.

    Mo money, mo problems isn't really a great mantra or solution to this either. Those with nothing to lose are the first to take it from others....

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    668
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Cuban should know better than to directly name the reasoning error that invalidates his entire point.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

    I'm pretty confidant Silver and the other owners are just using this instance to get rid of someone they have long thought to be vile and a black eye to the league as a whole. Again, back to my example of busting the mob on tax evasion.

    If this truly is a stepping stone to using any and all private conversations as a means to strip private property (and that is granting an NBA franchise is even typical private property), I hardly think anyone would be on board. But I don't think it takes too much reading between the lines to see what is really going on here.

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    4,813
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bmc398 View Post
    Its not about how the statute is used today...its about how its used and adopted tomorrow that concerns me. I mean, we don't know what the clause being invoked is that will force Sterling to sell. Its no doubt vague as all get out.
    Doesn't matter if we know or not. Sterling signed and agreed to it the rules of NBA franchise ownership and must now deal with the consequences. You're never going to own a professional sports team so you're not going to have to worry about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmc398 View Post
    Its the slow creep of PC-ism into culture that worries me. Say something off the cuff or in private thats in jest or you don't really mean? Too late....the media is out for blood and everybody wants to see you burn.
    Yes, it's damn shame that modern culture is holding people accountable for things.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmc398 View Post
    Mo money, mo problems isn't really a great mantra or solution to this either. Those with nothing to lose are the first to take it from others....
    Actually, those with everything are the first to take from those with nothing. Please see, slavery and Reagan-omics as two shining examples from our own country's history.
    “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." - Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." – Willard Romney

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,312
     Bryan770
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Labratt21 View Post
    Doesn't matter if we know or not. Sterling signed and agreed to it the rules of NBA franchise ownership and must now deal with the consequences. You're never going to own a professional sports team so you're not going to have to worry about it.



    Yes, it's damn shame that modern culture is holding people accountable for things.



    Actually, those with everything are the first to take from those with nothing. Please see, slavery and Reagan-omics as two shining examples from our own country's history.
    Because Obama's economic policy is sterling?

    It's more about WHAT culture is holding people accountable for than it only just starting now. It seems that if you do anything (you don't have to even come out and speak it in public) and are in a position of prominence and majority, the 99% are going to come after you hard, just because you have something they could never attain. Its a huge problem.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Nate Colbert 17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,692
     amosrusie
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mr. Sterling was set up, but that does not excuse his comments in any way, shape, or matter.

    It will be interesting to see how society (and the media) will react in the future if something like this happens again.

    I have a hunch it will all depend WHO is the offending party, rather than WHAT is said.

    Some people seem to always get a pass.
    Scott



    Did your favorite player ever hit 5 home runs in a doubleheader?

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    4,813
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bmc398 View Post
    It's more about WHAT culture is holding people accountable for than it only just starting now. It seems that if you do anything (you don't have to even come out and speak it in public) and are in a position of prominence and majority, the 99% are going to come after you hard, just because you have something they could never attain. Its a huge problem.
    “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." - Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." – Willard Romney

  8. #68
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    21
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Labratt21 View Post
    Doesn't matter if we know or not. Sterling signed and agreed to it the rules of NBA franchise ownership and must now deal with the consequences. You're never going to own a professional sports team so you're not going to have to worry about it.



    Yes, it's damn shame that modern culture is holding people accountable for things.



    Actually, those with everything are the first to take from those with nothing. Please see, slavery and BHO-care as two shining examples from our own country's history.
    FIXED YOUR POST FOR YOU.

  9. #69
    Senior Member hive17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    20,090
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bmc398 View Post
    Its not about how the statute is used today...its about how its used and adopted tomorrow that concerns me. I mean, we don't know what the clause being invoked is that will force Sterling to sell. Its no doubt vague as all get out. Its the slow creep of PC-ism into culture that worries me. Say something off the cuff or in private thats in jest or you don't really mean? Too late....the media is out for blood and everybody wants to see you burn.

    Mo money, mo problems isn't really a great mantra or solution to this either. Those with nothing to lose are the first to take it from others....
    The Federal Government didn't make him sell; a private organization with private by-laws set up by private individuals did. You have NOTHING to fear from the NBA, so your entire argument is moot. There can't even be a slippery slope argument here, since you and I will NEVER be on that slope; and if we magically get put there, we'll have had to agree to the rules to eeven get there.

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    4,813
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmbkb4 View Post
    FIXED YOUR POST FOR YOU.
    Who may I ask does The Affordable Care Act take away from?
    “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." - Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." – Willard Romney

  11. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,312
     Bryan770
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hive17 View Post
    The Federal Government didn't make him sell; a private organization with private by-laws set up by private individuals did. You have NOTHING to fear from the NBA, so your entire argument is moot. There can't even be a slippery slope argument here, since you and I will NEVER be on that slope; and if we magically get put there, we'll have had to agree to the rules to eeven get there.
    Again, you miss the point. The issue isn't necessarily that he is being forced to sell. It's about how the information was obtained (legal or illegal recording?...that will be for the courts to decide) to smear his character to force him to sell. Nobody is arguing that he isn't a scumbag. If he had come out and made these comments on a legal recording or in public, lets go ahead and string him up. The issue I have is that seemingly a private conversation has been made public for no other reason than to take this man down. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy....but that fact withstanding it is highly troubling to me that now a private conversation can be used to take down somebody just because some people don't like him. It's a serious affront to privacy laws in this country.

    There is no slippery slope here. I argued that if this illegally obtained recording (based on the facts now) is used to force somebody to divest personal property, then what is to stop it from happening again. The slippery slope fallacy says that if X happens, then Y will happen. I am not arguing that. I am arguing that if X is allowed to happen now, what will stop X from happening again? I am well aware what the NBA is doing is legal within their bounds.....but that they are using illegally obtained evidence to reach that goal. Nothing can stop his tarnished image in public (nor should it), but you don't see anything wrong with him being forced out due to illegally obtained evidence?

  12. #72
    Senior Member hive17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    20,090
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bmc398 View Post
    Again, you miss the point. The issue isn't necessarily that he is being forced to sell. It's about how the information was obtained (legal or illegal recording?...that will be for the courts to decide) to smear his character to force him to sell. Nobody is arguing that he isn't a scumbag. If he had come out and made these comments on a legal recording or in public, lets go ahead and string him up. The issue I have is that seemingly a private conversation has been made public for no other reason than to take this man down. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy....but that fact withstanding it is highly troubling to me that now a private conversation can be used to take down somebody just because some people don't like him. It's a serious affront to privacy laws in this country.

    There is no slippery slope here. I argued that if this illegally obtained recording (based on the facts now) is used to force somebody to divest personal property, then what is to stop it from happening again. The slippery slope fallacy says that if X happens, then Y will happen. I am not arguing that. I am arguing that if X is allowed to happen now, what will stop X from happening again? I am well aware what the NBA is doing is legal within their bounds.....but that they are using illegally obtained evidence to reach that goal. Nothing can stop his tarnished image in public (nor should it), but you don't see anything wrong with him being forced out due to illegally obtained evidence?
    The privacy of what was said (now the lack of privacy) and the fact that the NBA is forcing him to sell are not legally related. Sterling's girlfriend may very well face criminal invasion of privacy action. Who knows. BUT, what we do know, is that those words were said. The NBA can say XXXXall to the laws of how and why they know what they know; the NBA is under no obligation, once the speech is out there, to further protect Sterling from what he said. The NBA ONLY has to deal with the fact that they now have an image problem. Thus, they will force Sterling to sell, and they are 100% legit in doing so.

    This happens in criminal cases all the time, and people are offered immunity for their crimes that only come to light because of someone else's criminal activity.

    By your logic, Ryan Braun should still be innocent to this day, since his privacy has been violated repeatedly during his scandal. Never mind that medical records were likely improperly leaked, or that his expectation of privacy disappeared due to tortious interference by the MLB.

  13. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,312
     Bryan770
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hive17 View Post
    The privacy of what was said (now the lack of privacy) and the fact that the NBA is forcing him to sell are not legally related. Sterling's girlfriend may very well face criminal invasion of privacy action. Who knows. BUT, what we do know, is that those words were said. The NBA can say XXXXall to the laws of how and why they know what they know; the NBA is under no obligation, once the speech is out there, to further protect Sterling from what he said. The NBA ONLY has to deal with the fact that they now have an image problem. Thus, they will force Sterling to sell, and they are 100% legit in doing so.

    This happens in criminal cases all the time, and people are offered immunity for their crimes that only come to light because of someone else's criminal activity.

    By your logic, Ryan Braun should still be innocent to this day, since his privacy has been violated repeatedly during his scandal. Never mind that medical records were likely improperly leaked, or that his expectation of privacy disappeared due to tortious interference by the MLB.
    Could Sterling not countersue the NBA after there is a vote that forces him to divest? The NBA would then have to prove that he was indeed in some violation of its ethics clause. They would then be using something that was illegally obtained to drive that arguement, therefore his sale could potentially be blocked. Maybe that's complete off the wall hooey, but my understanding of the NBA rule that forces an owner out is that it has to be based on some detrimental conduct and can't just be because 3/4ths of the other owners don't like you.

    And as I stated before, Sterling is already screwed in the court of public opinion (as he should be). That doesn't mean that he shouldn't get full protection that the law affords him in this case. Same with Braun. I am fuzzy on all of the details on the Braun case....but didn't he have MULTIPLE positive tests? In that case, why would it matter what happened the first time around? Didn't he basically rake the MLB guy in charge of the first positive testing over the coals as a fraud, and then get caught doping again?
    Last edited by bmc398; 05-08-2014 at 03:12 PM.

  14. #74
    Senior Member hive17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    20,090
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bmc398 View Post
    Could Sterling not countersue the NBA after there is a vote that forces him to divest? The NBA would then have to prove that he was indeed in some violation of its ethics clause. They would then be using something that was illegally obtained to drive that arguement, therefore his sale could potentially be blocked. Maybe that's complete off the wall hooey, but my understanding of the NBA rule that forces an owner out is that it has to be based on some detrimental conduct and can't just be because 3/4ths of the other owners don't like you.

    And as I stated before, Sterling is already screwed in the court of public opinion (as he should be). That doesn't mean that he shouldn't get full protection that the law affords him in this case. Same with Braun. I am fuzzy on all of the details on the Braun case....but didn't he have MULTIPLE positive tests? In that case, why would it matter what happened the first time around? Didn't he basically rake the MLB guy in charge of the first positive testing over the coals as a fraud, and then get caught doping again?
    With Sterling, just like with Braun, the legal aspect or nature of whatever "evidence" that a league wants to use is irrelevant. The NBA did not obtain what Sterling said, it is simply a matter of fact now. If Sterling counter-sues, he it would be up to him to put the toothpaste back in the tube; the NBA is just going to stand on the fact THAT the speech exists, not how or why it came into being. Like with Braun; MLB didn't nor does it have to, care about how evidence of a crime came to light. Once it's out there, that's it. Braun copped to it; in the case of A-Rod, he may sue the MLB for invading his expectation of privacy. That's part of the problem you have when these leagues try to act like law-enforcement agencies, it muddies the water.

    The NBA was a by-stander in this whole Sterling mess, and they'll be damded if his illegally(?) obtained speech is going to screw with their bottom line. Should they have to, in your opinion?

  15. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,312
     Bryan770
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hive17 View Post
    With Sterling, just like with Braun, the legal aspect or nature of whatever "evidence" that a league wants to use is irrelevant. The NBA did not obtain what Sterling said, it is simply a matter of fact now. If Sterling counter-sues, he it would be up to him to put the toothpaste back in the tube; the NBA is just going to stand on the fact THAT the speech exists, not how or why it came into being. Like with Braun; MLB didn't nor does it have to, care about how evidence of a crime came to light. Once it's out there, that's it. Braun copped to it; in the case of A-Rod, he may sue the MLB for invading his expectation of privacy. That's part of the problem you have when these leagues try to act like law-enforcement agencies, it muddies the water.

    The NBA was a by-stander in this whole Sterling mess, and they'll be damded if his illegally(?) obtained speech is going to screw with their bottom line. Should they have to, in your opinion?
    They should follow the law, no matter who it benefits. I might be wrong and the sale goes through and Sterling nets himself a cool $1.5 billion. I don't think he is necessarily losing there. That said, the NBA can stand on the fact that the speech exists, until a judge says they can't. Again, I have no clue if it can or will happen but it seems to be that if a vote does take place that Donald Sterling, Esquire will make sure that he fights it tooth and nail and uses every law to his advantage. It will no doubt come up how the speech was obtained, and if it was obtained illegally there is no way it will be allowed as the cause for detrimental conduct in an argument in court.

    Not being a Braun or A-Rod fan I didn't really follow their whole steroid escapades. I know that since Braun got nabbed for the second time and that he made the first process pretty ugly, he copped to it as the MLB threatened to make it uglier for him if he didn't. I fail to see how his privacy was violated. He tested positive and due to that his results were about to be public knowledge anyhow, correct? Again, I didn't follow the whole saga. All I understood was that XYZ players tested positive and these were the suspensions they were getting because of it.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •