Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 68
  1. #41
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What rules? The arbitrary whimsical rule that says, if you hate we'll hate you back? That sure solves the problem. Wasn't that 8th Century stuff that we figured out by now doesn't work? We can trash the golden rule if we want to as a society or be selective of when we use it, but for a tolerant and compassionate nation that makes us glaring hypocrites.
    Not sure what you mean exactly. The golden rule more or less is what I'm talking about. Society is built on cooperation, agreements to follow standards. Those who don't follow the standards are in some way either expelled or punished for their failure to follow said rules.

    Example
    We agree that we will not take each-others personal property except when the exchange is voluntary.
    If someone breaks that rule then we punish them in some way, partly for the sake of justice, partly to discourage people from breaking the rule who might be tempted.

    The agreement is mostly based on the golden rule. I don't want my stuff taken so I won't take your stuff.
    But if we just let people take our stuff without action, the benefit of cooperation (secure property) will be lost even though most people are willing to abide by the rule. So to gain any social benefit from our agreement, we have to censure those who break the social contract.

    I don't think there is anything all that outdated or old fashioned about any of that.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Look, I'll be the first one to say: I don't care what some nutcase says in the privacy of his own home (Outside of being disgusted by their personal thoughts), I don't watch sports, and I don't understand society's desire to elevate people who play sports to the level of god. However, that being said, I really cannot figure out why anyone would be coming to this guy's aid.

    What part of this guy's situation am I supposed to feel sympathy for? The fact that he has had numerous extra-marital affairs with mixed-race women? The fact that he tells them not associate with other black people? The fact that he's literally made millions off of the African-American players while calling them inferior behind their backs?



    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    What really kills me is that this girlfriend of his recorded hundreds of hours of this guy talking and, from what I can tell, clearly baited him into expressing his racist views while he was being recorded. This whole affair stinks of a set-up.
    Bro, you know that I respect you, but I cannot understand the opinion's that you've presented in this post at all. But I understand this the least. Police bait people into admitting the truth; how does the fact that it might have been a "setup" matter in the least? Either the guy is a racist pig or he isn't. The answer is: Clearly he's a racist pig. Who cares how this was exposed?

    Even if someone decided to expose this, like you conjecture, why do you care? Firstly, the guy honestly had this coming. He works in a field with a lot of African-Americans, he chooses to say really horrible sh*t about them on a regular basis, and that's against the rules of the organization that he willingly chose to be a part of. Okay, so let's suppose that someone knew this and wanted to make a buck off of the fact that this guy won't play by the rules that he agreed to obey --so what? If you violate the rules that you agreed to abide by, and someone realizes that you're violating the rules of the organization that you willingly chose to be a part of (and to make a tremendous amount of money off of), and they expose that you are violating these rules (even in order for them to money off of it)... What does this have to do with the owner? Clearly, the owner broke the rules of his profession (Both professions, actually). There's all sorts of professional organizations that have different code of ethics that are enforced via contracts and legal documents. Like in every field, if someone catches you breaking these rules, you have to pay a price --even if the person who discovered your maleficence will profit off of it. Sure, if someone points this out to make a buck off of the guy, they aren't terribly scrupled, but it doesn't change anything --whatsoever-- about the fact that the owner broke the rules of the professional organization that he is a part of.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas
    Why should a person be persecuted for what he says in the privacy of his own home? It's not like people didn't know about his racism before; the DoJ had already pursued charges against him for racist practices in renting several properties he owned. It was well known among his acquaintances that he was racist and always had been. The guy's 80 years old... he was raised in a different time where this mindset was not only appropriate but encouraged. He's a jackass for saying what he did... no doubt. But he's also a dinosaur. The man's clearly a product of a bygone era, and it's not like this is going to teach him any lessons or change his mind.
    Right, so it's a well-known fact that this guy is a racist sack of... That he's not a very good guy. How does the fact that he said things like "You can tell blacks live here, it smells like black people" make me anymore sympathy for him?

    And sure, he's a dinosaur, but it doesn't change the fact that he controls the future of African-Americans, that he hires and employs African-Americans, that he makes money off of these employees, and that NBA has very strict rules on being an open racist and being a member of the NBA. Honestly, I'll quote the Republican stance on punishment: "It's not that we punish a man so he'll learn, we punish him so that others may not follow his footsteps." Now, I may not agree with this mentality in general, but I'm quite certain that this is the mentality that the NBA is taking towards this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas
    I don't think that he should have said what he said... but I also think that what he said, no matter how racist or objectionable, is still only words... words he said in private, and not in public. What this man has essentially been convicted of in the court of public opinion is a thought-crime. He holds views that most people find objectionable... so what?
    So what? The guy signed a contract with the NBA so he could own a team and make a lot of money. As it turns out, that means that if he violates the rules of the NBA, he gets to pay a fine. He signed that contract and made a huge amount of money from the clippers. And now that he's violated those rules of that organization, he got punished for it. Aren't conservatives supposed to be the law-and-order people?

    Look, this isn't a civil suit; this isn't the government. This is a private organization that he freely chose to associate with. This guy signed a contract with the NBA and has made a killing off of it. He said some unbelievably hideous s*** (seriously, did you hear the recording? It's absolutely disgusting. He literally calls his half-black girlfriend stupid/ignorant for not understanding that black people are lesser human beings), he got caught, and now he has to pay the price for his poor decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas
    Plenty of people harbor sentiments that, if they were known to the public, would probably cause similar outrage. Can you imagine some of the misogynistic crap that gets said in the locker rooms of the NBA, considering how many players have been convicted of sexual abuse or assault on their girlfriends? None of those guys are getting secretly recorded and then tarred-and-feathered for speaking in private.
    But if they were recorded (and I think it wouldn't be a bad thing if they were), then they should have to pay the consequences of their language. Again, everyone of these people signed a morality clause in their contracts to join the NBA. When they chose to violate these contracts, it doesn't make it okay for one guy to violate the contract because everyone else gets to constantly break their contracts. Your argument here is a literal ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas
    My bet: someone wants to buy the Clippers, and he refused to sell. That someone decided to ruin this guy's reputation and buy the Clippers for a song once he had thoroughly destroyed any hope that Sterling would be able to profit from them again. Mark my words: if anyone ever cares enough to investigate this, it will become apparent that the person who buys this team will most likely be discovered to have had a hand in this. I'm also willing to bet that this girlfriend is going to come away from all of this with a tidy amount of money in her pocket for betraying the man she must have claimed to love.
    1.) Even if she did, who cares? Again, the guy was a racist who treated her like s***. I'm not seeing the argument that she should be loyal to him and tell no one of his obscenely racist views and the obscenely racist things he said to her.

    2.) Of course he'll make a profit off of it. He bought the Clippers for like 15 million dollars and they're now worth 700 million dollars.

    3.) Who cares if he can't make a profit off of it. He broke the morality clause in the rules of the NBA. Why is there some moral obligation for him to make money off of an industry who's professional ethics he violated?

    4.) It's not that important, but if we want to talk about violating people's trust, she was his mistress for christ's sake.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Look, I'll be the first one to say: I don't care what some nutcase says in the privacy of his own home (Outside of being disgusted by their personal thoughts), I don't watch sports, and I don't understand society's desire to elevate people who play sports to the level of god. However, that being said, I really cannot figure out why anyone would be coming to this guy's aid.
    This is why
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    John Adams, in his old age, called his defense of British soldiers in 1770 "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."
    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...eyfigures.html

    Can one be much more hated than the British soldiers of the 1770's? Isn't the example of John Adams the one we should follow, or should we follow those that allow their hatred to over ride their sense of justice and the respect of the rights of others(here the right to privacy) even those that they hate?
    To serve man.

  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is why

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...eyfigures.html

    Can one be much more hated than the British soldiers of the 1770's? Isn't the example of John Adams the one we should follow, or should we follow those that allow their hatred to over ride their sense of justice and the respect of the rights of others(here the right to privacy) even those that they hate?
    Do you equate soldiers fighting for their country, patriots, no matter which side they're on, with racists? Nobody really hates Sterling but we hate his attitudes. There's nothing noble in defending him!

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Do you equate soldiers fighting for their country, patriots, no matter which side they're on, with racists?
    Given my last post, I don't see why one would think I do.
    Why do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Nobody really hates Sterling but we hate his attitudes.
    Really?

    ... seems your wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    There's nothing noble in defending him!
    Defending the enemy when they are being wronged is always noble.
    To serve man.

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Given my last post, I don't see why one would think I do.
    Why do you?
    Are you not suggesting that we should all defend racists in the same way Adams defended the British soldiers? (which was his job as a lawyer anyway!)


    Really?

    ... seems your wrong.
    Black people not liking people being disparaging about black people! More victim blaming!

    Defending the enemy when they are being wronged is always noble.
    But he hasn't been wronged - he has been outed as a through and through racist; and nobody wants him involved in a public sport that has both black players and fans. Besides, even without the racist component, it appears that he doesn't want black people being brought to him games so how else is that supposed to be taken anyway? And even if you believe the outing to be 'wrong', it doesn't change the facts of what he said: so what exactly are you really defending?

  7. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is why

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...eyfigures.html

    Can one be much more hated than the British soldiers of the 1770's? Isn't the example of John Adams the one we should follow, or should we follow those that allow their hatred to over ride their sense of justice and the respect of the rights of others(here the right to privacy) even those that they hate?
    *sigh*

    1.) There's no violations of this guy's liberties.
    2,.) This guy is obviously, manifestly guilty of the contract violation that he's been convicted of (by the private organization that he freely chose to be a part of).

    You've just dodged my question with a completely irrelevant statement about our the Founding Fathers. If someone has their rights being violated, sure, come to their defense. If someone is being convicted of crimes or being penalized by a private organization for something they didn't do --sure, then come to his aid.


    But the guy is guilty six-ways to Sunday. I'm not asking why we should support people's views who we don't agree with, I'm asking you to present an argument for why he shouldn't be penalized for breaking a contract that he signed and has profited off of immensely, and knew full well that he was violating. He's not going to jail, he's paying a fine and losing privileges from a private organization that he has a contract with that included a morality clause.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  8. #48
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    I don't have time or ability to do a proper rebuttal, but I would like to pose a question or two:

    1)GP, are you asserting that simply holding views which you personally find objectionable is, by itself, sufficient grounds to violate a person's natural right to privacy in their own home?

    2) Are you arguing that simply holding a viewpoint that you find personally objectionable is grounds for taking action to sanction such a person, even if he doesn't express his views in a public forum?

    3) Which clause of the contract, specifically, did Mr. Spencer violate by speaking about something in the privacy of his own home? Are the terms of his contract even publicly available? The entire constitution and bylaws of the NBA are fairly secret, from what I have gathered.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  9. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    *sigh*

    1.) There's no violations of this guy's liberties.
    Well, that is true, I phrased that wrong. Because here I don't really intend to defend the privacy line given my previous post noting that he was aware of the recording. (unless it turns out it was her job to record such things for him.. )

    What I have maintained throughout this thread, and meant to reference here was the sense of proper proportion of offense and reaction/punishment.
    The way that I forward he is being wrong is not about his liberty, but fairness and justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    2,.) This guy is obviously, manifestly guilty of the contract violation that he's been convicted of (by the private organization that he freely chose to be a part of).
    I have not argued otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    You've just dodged my question with a completely irrelevant statement about our the Founding Fathers. If someone has their rights being violated, sure, come to their defense. If someone is being convicted of crimes or being penalized by a private organization for something they didn't do --sure, then come to his aid.
    No, I had a point and I maintain that it is still a valid one.
    The reason John Adams defended those men is because they had a right to a fair trial (not because they were innocent or guilty), so too here having been convicted correctly, his punishment should still be proportional and not excessive. For which I forwarded that his punishment was excessive. Even if the punishment is a reflection of the degree of outrage.. then that outrage is excessive.
    We simply can't fall off our horse when we find out someone doesn't like someone else(or even a group of them).


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    But the guy is guilty six-ways to Sunday. I'm not asking why we should support people's views who we don't agree with, I'm asking you to present an argument for why he shouldn't be penalized for breaking a contract that he signed and has profited off of immensely, and knew full well that he was violating. He's not going to jail, he's paying a fine and losing privileges from a private organization that he has a contract with that included a morality clause.
    The argument is this.

    1) Conversations had in private(when it does not involve harming others) should not be the subject of public scrutiny. To the extent that we do that as a society is the extent that we cross our boundaries and start sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. Basically our attention should not be on the mans conversation with his GF.
    See my Paparazzi nation, and A&B conversation C yourself out.. points made earlier in thread.

    2) The NBA should not be judging his private words. (this is the lawyer point). It may be fine for them to say "Look.. 10million people hate you, so we are fining you", but they said "You said X to your GF so we are fining you". That is frankly none of their business and their contract shouldn't cover such things, as to the degree it does it is too invasive and thus excessive. (I doubt when he signed on he had any inclination that all of his private conversations would become subject to judgment and possible ousting by the other members.

    3) From 1 & 2,
    A) the fine of 2.5Mil is excessive, and I doubt is comparable to ANYTHING levied against anyone ever before.
    (list of all fines)


    B) Assuming that A) is actually reasonable, the addition of a life time ban from games, and a ban from entering his own facilities is then excessive.
    compare
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    On January 27, 2010, Arenas and teammate Javaris Crittenton were suspended for the remainder of the season by NBA commissioner David Stern for violating league rules and Washington, D.C. laws against bringing firearms into an arena.[33] Arenas was previously suspended indefinitely on January 6. They reportedly stored unloaded firearms in their lockers and drew guns on each other during an argument regarding gambling debts back in December 2009.[34] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ded_by_the_NBA
    So Say bad things to your GF = life time ban.
    Threaten the life (IE assault with a deadly weapon) of another person (a player) and you get 50 game suspension.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    On December 1, 1997, Sprewell attacked and threatened then-Warriors head coach P. J. Carlesimo during team practice. He was immediately suspended ten games by the Warriors. However, the Warriors terminated Sprewell's $23.7 million contract two days later and he was subsequently suspended for a year (82 games) by NBA commissioner David Stern. Sprewell took the case to arbitration, and as a result, the termination of his contract was overturned and his suspension was reduced to 68 games.[31][32]
    Cases of the use of ACTUAL VIOLENCE.. in relation it is a slap on the wrist.

    Clearly disproportionate.

    C) (Informed by IBELSD's earlier post) This is a bad precedent to set for the NBA, to say that anyone who has expressed racist feelings in private would be subject to being banned by the NBA for life. Specifically because (re #2) .. If not, I look forward to seeing the consistency where the first player to use racist slurs in private(or public) is banned for life. .. I'll just hold my breath for that one.

    D) Given A and/or B & C, being forced to sell the team then is even more so excessive.


    4) So my argument is not that he was justified in saying what he said, or that he was not guilty of racism, or that no action should be taken against him and no reaction should be had.
    My argument is that the reaction has been fueled by emotion(specifically dislike for him personally) and has thus over reacted to what has occurred. It is not by the merits of his actions that he is being punished, it is by the level of personal disdain.
    To serve man.

  10. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,568
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Got some examples of prominent black people making racial statements that are largely ignored?
    If a prominent liberal politician, black or white, makes a racially charged statement, they are forgiven. For example, then Senator Joe Biden and candidate for President in 2008 said of fellow Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama:

    "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man!" http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16911044/n.../#.U2VsuKKa-PV

    For decades, the words "articulate", "bright" and "clean" when used to describe a black man were understood to suggest that the average black man was NOT articulate, bright, clean or good looking. If John McCain had used those words to describe Barack Obama as an unusual black candidate, it would have been the end of McCain's campaign because the liberal news media would have put every prominent Democrat on television denouncing McCain for weeks. But because it was a prominent Democrat who said it, Obama, Jesse Jackson and the rest of the Democrat establishment gave him a pass, saying he was just inaccurate. And the news media followed their lead, laying off Biden, excusing him for using "generational language".

    That was just six months after Biden had claimed "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking", for which he also got a pass: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13757367/n.../#.U2Vt_aKa-PU

    Those racially charged statements were covered by the Big Three networks only after they went viral on the internet and gained traction on talk radio. But they were basically one-day stories on CBSNBCABCPBS, and were then forgotten. The media could say they covered it, and moved on.

    Add to those, Biden's known plagiarism of Britain's Neil Kinnock: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ck-speech.html lies about being the first in his family to attend college and about his ancestors being coal miners http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ite_stuff.html and plagiarized five pages of material during law school, causing him to fail the course and retake it: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us...alevolent.html

    Tell me Sig, seriously and honestly, do you think that any Republican making such statements and behaving so dishonestly would be treated as gently by the liberal media? Would there be any chance of him becoming Vice President of the United States?

    ............................

    A bit more:

    From the Slate article above, Biden lied publicly about getting a full scholarship to law school, and lied about graduating in the top half of his class. His law school grades were pretty poor. Did the democrat/media collective say anything about this when Biden was nominated for VP? Pretty much not.

    John Tower's nomination by George Bush for Defense Secretary was rejected by the Senate amid a democrat/media feeding frenzy over his rumored heavy drinking and womanizing. You say liberals and the media don't care about sex lives, but they sure do when it is a Republican involved. Not surprisingly, Democrats and the liberal media didn't care about Ted Kennedy's drinking and philandering during the same timer period. And they also don't pay any attention to Joe Biden's rumored heavy drinking. All Biden has to do is claim he doesn't drink (despite the fact that he is a known liar about his personal history). Watch this video of Biden during the campaign, and tell me he wasn't drunk on stage in public, with the Obamas laughing about his drunkenness just a few feet away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TBNeNHHXEY And is this Joe Biden a few years back, skunk drunk? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmRXH7RkCZQ I think it is him.

    But NONE of all the above matters, because Biden is an establishment liberal Democrat, and the liberal media generally doesn't take down one of its own (unless its during a primary campaign between democrats - I'll concede those occasional exceptions).
    Last edited by evensaul; May 4th, 2014 at 08:55 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  11. Likes Talthas liked this post
  12. #51
    Rzhayutik
    Guest

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    They got this hater

  13. #52
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I don't have time or ability to do a proper rebuttal, but I would like to pose a question or two:

    1)GP, are you asserting that simply holding views which you personally find objectionable is, by itself, sufficient grounds to violate a person's natural right to privacy in their own home?

    2) Are you arguing that simply holding a viewpoint that you find personally objectionable is grounds for taking action to sanction such a person, even if he doesn't express his views in a public forum?

    3) Which clause of the contract, specifically, did Mr. Spencer violate by speaking about something in the privacy of his own home? Are the terms of his contract even publicly available? The entire constitution and bylaws of the NBA are fairly secret, from what I have gathered.
    1.) Recording someone is not illegal; that's a fact. I can record you while you call me, and I can legally distribute that to anyone I like. Moreover, he's apparently freely racist in public, too, so I'm not seeing why this is a good argument. The tapes definitely show the degree and intensity of his racism, however. Secondly, his mistress alleges that he asked her to record their conversations because he has a bad memory. Who knows if that's true, but even if it isn't:

    2.) He has been convicted of violating a contract that he made with a private organization (one that he willingly chose to be a part of and signed his name on the dotted line). Private organizations are not bound by due process, Talthas. You might not understand this, but the "natural rights" that you speak of only apply to decisions that governments make. Private organizations, whom you signed a contract with, pretty much can have any internal disciplinary system based upon whatever reasoning that they like, so long as they're not breaking a law or your contact by doing so. So your appeal to "natural rights" is a category error. He's not being convicted of a crime and no one has broken his fundamental rights (and even if she had broken his rights, it would be a civil issue that he could sue his mistress over; private organizations are not bound by the doctrine of "fruit of the poisoned tree" because, again, they are not a government agency).

    3.) Indeed, no one knows what is in his contract, but if they are fining him 2.5 million dollars, my guess is that they have a pretty strong morality clause in their NBA contracts. I think you'd have to be basically brain-dead to think that "Hey, I make my money from the NBA, but it shouldn't matter if I'm an open racist."


    4.) As to the implicit question: If you make 700 million dollars off of a professional organization --which to put it mildly is an organization that is ethnically diverse, prides itself on its ethnic diversity, and needs the ethnic diversity in order to function in a healthy manner-- and you cannot stop yourself from making racist remarks, then, yes, I have no problem when that organization curb stomps you. He has chosen to make outstandingly racist comments on a regular basis, both in private and in public, as well in professional contexts (he apparently asked someone applying to be a coach for the Clippers "Do you think you can manage all of these n****s?"); no one held a gun to his head and made him say these things or treat people of a different race as though they were inferior. He chose to do that. His mistress didn't ask him to hold obscenely racist views; she asked him what his opinions were, and they happen to be obscenely racist. Now, what he said was not illegal, but the government isn't the only one organization that can penalize you. All of the professional organizations --whether it be realty associations for realtors or the bar for lawyers-- have codes of ethics that they require you to play by.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    1) Conversations had in private(when it does not involve harming others) should not be the subject of public scrutiny. To the extent that we do that as a society is the extent that we cross our boundaries and start sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. Basically our attention should not be on the mans conversation with his GF.
    See my Paparazzi nation, and A&B conversation C yourself out.. points made earlier in thread.

    2) The NBA should not be judging his private words. (this is the lawyer point). It may be fine for them to say "Look.. 10million people hate you, so we are fining you", but they said "You said X to your GF so we are fining you". That is frankly none of their business and their contract shouldn't cover such things, as to the degree it does it is too invasive and thus excessive. (I doubt when he signed on he had any inclination that all of his private conversations would become subject to judgment and possible ousting by the other members.
    1.) In case you didn't realize this, he is getting fined because he pissed off 100 million people. More to the point, he pissed off 100 million people by doing something that is a serious ethical violation in his profession. That's why he's getting fined and lost his privileges.

    2.) As per Talthas, you seem to be laboring under the delusion that private organizations have to adhere to your "natural rights." That's entirely false; a private organization, which you sign a contract with that includes disciplinary measures for breaches of said contract (in this case almost certainly a morality clause), is not bound by due process. They get to use whatever reasoning they see fit. You might disagree with the reasoning, but this has nothing to do with his right to privacy. Once the secret that you hate black people, and that you think that they are basically pond scum, gets out the NBA is not bound to care how it got out or whether it is fruit from the poisonous tree. They have information, and they have every legal right to act on it. And again, frankly, his behavior is objectively harmful to his profession, so I can't see a reason why he shouldn't have the hammer brought down on him.
    Last edited by GoldPhoenix; May 3rd, 2014 at 07:19 PM.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  14. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    1.) Recording someone is not illegal; that's a fact. I can record you while you call me, and I can legally distribute that to anyone I like.
    Maybe in the country you live in, but not in America. We have state laws regarding this.

    California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

    If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/cali...-recording-law

    Recording Phone Calls and Conversations

    If you plan to record telephone calls or in-person conversations (including by recording video that captures sound), you should be aware that there are federal and state wiretapping laws that may limit your ability to do so. These laws not only expose you to the risk of criminal prosecution, but also potentially give an injured party a civil claim for money damages against you.
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/reco...-conversations


    Moreover, he's apparently freely racist in public, too, so I'm not seeing why this is a good argument. The tapes definitely show the degree and intensity of his racism, however.
    Hummm, I wonder if our attempt to make the word racist be a political black and white issue dims our sense of reasoning:

    V. Stiviano: Donald Sterling Is Not a Racist, Should Apologize for Remarks

    Stiviano denied having a romantic relationship with Sterling, saying she is his personal assistant and sees Sterling as “a father figure” -- calling herself his "silly rabbit." She claims that people around Sterling would say negative things about her to him, saying they “poison his mind and heart about things about me,” which would drive him to say certain things.

    Despite the controversy around his comments, she said he is not a racist.

    “I think Mr. Sterling is from a different generation than I am. I think he was brought up to believe these things … segregation, whites and blacks,” Stiviano said. “But through his actions he’s shown that he’s not a racist. He’s shown to be a very generous and kind man.”

    Sterling, 80, has owned the Clippers since 1981. Sources also told ESPN Thursday that Sterling is battling cancer.

    Stiviano is also currently tangled in a legal battle with Sterling’s estranged wife Rochelle Sterlin

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/barbara-wal...ry?id=23569035


    ---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Not sure what you mean exactly. The golden rule more or less is what I'm talking about. Society is built on cooperation, agreements to follow standards. Those who don't follow the standards are in some way either expelled or punished for their failure to follow said rules.
    The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code or morality[2] that essentially states either of the following:
    One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
    One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

    Where is the golden rule principle in this issue?

    Should we go record a friend's personal private conversation and not be responsible with those recordings because we would expect our friend to return that kind gesture and do the same to us?

    Should we hate and be intolerant toward someone with a twisted sort of mentality about race because we would want to be hated if we had the same type of twisted mentality?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  15. Likes Talthas liked this post
  16. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    1.) In case you didn't realize this, he is getting fined because he pissed off 100 million people. More to the point, he pissed off 100 million people by doing something that is a serious ethical violation in his profession. That's why he's getting fined and lost his privileges.
    I don't believe that is what the ruling came down as. They ruled that he said something racist and was fined for the language he used.
    you are free to enlighten me with some source that says otherwise, but I believe the links I posted said it was because of his language.

    Second, I haven't argued that NO ACTION should be taken, but that it is too severe.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    2.) As per Talthas, you seem to be laboring under the delusion that private organizations have to adhere to your "natural rights." That's entirely false; a private organization, which you sign a contract with that includes disciplinary measures for breaches of said contract (in this case almost certainly a morality clause), is not bound by due process. They get to use whatever reasoning they see fit. You might disagree with the reasoning, but this has nothing to do with his right to privacy. Once the secret that you hate black people, and that you think that they are basically pond scum, gets out the NBA is not bound to care how it got out or whether it is fruit from the poisonous tree. They have information, and they have every legal right to act on it. And again, frankly, his behavior is objectively harmful to his profession, so I can't see a reason why he shouldn't have the hammer brought down on him.
    That is entirely irrelevant to my point. I have not argued that they CAN'T do what they are doing, I haven't argued that it is or should be ILLEGAL.
    So what is the relevance of your response to my argument that,

    1) They(the people in general, and the NBA) are being too severe and over reacting?


    The use of the language "delusion" is laughable considering that you don't seem to grasp my argument, even though I put it out pretty clearly.
    Further, I also offered an argument about the contract itself, and how it is unreasonable to think that it would be used like this when he signed on (IE that private conversations could result in loss of team and such extravagant fines and punishments). It seem that argument should at least be addressed before you lecture about how private contracts work.
    To serve man.

  17. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Where is the golden rule principle in this issue?
    People would like to be treated with respect and not judged by simply the color of their skin but by their own individual merits.
    Since Mr. Sterling doesn't do that people are angry with him.

    Should we go record a friend's personal private conversation and not be responsible with those recordings because we would expect our friend to return that kind gesture and do the same to us?
    According to the the news stories the recordings were done by mutual agreement. Who was to have them its a bit less clear and apparently some associate of his alleged mistress released them. So in this case not a friend of his.

    Were I her I'd be deeply offended by his remarks and not consider him a friend at all. She however gets quite a lot of money from him so perhaps that makes up for any disrespect in her eyes.

    Should we hate and be intolerant toward someone with a twisted sort of mentality about race because we would want to be hated if we had the same type of twisted mentality?
    No, we should speak up and let someone know they are breaking the golden rule and withdraw our cooperation from them. The golden rule does not directly speak to what you should do to address those who do not follow it.

    Generally when someone breaks the rules, you stop playing the game with them.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  18. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    People would like to be treated with respect and not judged by simply the color of their skin but by their own individual merits.
    Actually, the case against Sterling at this time is not for any particular action or any direct disrespect, the case is against his free conscience thoughts.

    According to the news stories the recordings were done by mutual agreement.
    So where is the golden rule of reciprocity here?

    A person is hired to be personal assistant and help take care of an 80-year old man who is fighting cancer and doesn’t have a good memory. So he agrees to have the helper record him in case he needs to remember something he said because he's aging and can't remember everything he says. He trusts his helper to be responsible with those conversations because he’s a successful business man and has lots of assets. But the person is not responsible with the recordings and a conversation gets leaked and people are angry over racist remarks.

    Were I her I'd be deeply offended by his remarks and not consider him a friend at all.
    She doesn’t think he’s a racist

    No, we should speak up and let someone know they are breaking the golden rule
    He has broken the golden rule many times before and the NBA and media have willfully turned their heads. They’re not turning their heads now because it’s just too sensational and you can only be a hypocrite for so long.

    In 2006, the U.S. Justice Department sued Sterling and his wife for excluding black tenants and favoring Korean tenants in some of their properties. According to the Los Angeles Times, Justice Department lawyers presented evidence that Sterling and his wife made statements “indicating that African Americans and Hispanics were not desirable tenants and that they preferred Korean tenants” occupy buildings they owned in Koreatown. Three years later, the Justice Department and Sterling reached a settlement. Sterling agreed to pay a record $2.7 million. It was, at the time, the largest settlement ever obtained by the U.S. Justice Department in a housing discrimination case involving rental apartments.

    Sterling, in fact, has a long history of landlord misdeeds. In 2008, the LA Weekly summarized some of the most egregious examples of Sterling’s grotesque greed:

    2001: City of Santa Monica sued him, claiming he harassed eight tenants in three rent-controlled buildings by threatening to evict them for having potted plants on balconies. He paid $25,000 in settlements.
    2002: Sterling sued apparent lover Alexandra Castro for the title to a $1 million Beverly Hills home. Castro said the dwelling was a gift from him to her. The case was settled for undisclosed terms.
    2003: Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles represented a tenant Sterling tried to evict on Lincoln Boulevard for allegedly tearing down notices in an elevator. Sterling won. The tenant was evicted.
    2004: Sterling and other landlords won a major appellate case against Santa Monica’s stringent Tenant Harassment Ordinance, which Santa Monica’s city attorney had used to order Sterling and other landlords to stop issuing eviction notices, terming the notices “harassment.”
    2004: Elisheba Sabi, an elderly widow represented by Los Angeles Legal Aid Foundation, sued Sterling for refusing her Section 8 voucher to rent an apartment.
    2005: Sterling sued landowner Larry Taylor for allegedly reneging on an unsigned note that agreed to sell Sterling properties worth about $17 million. The “handwritten note” war made it to the California Supreme Court. Taylor won last year.
    2005: Sterling settled a housing-discrimination lawsuit filed by the Housing Rights Center, which represented more than a dozen tenants. He paid nearly $5 million in legal fees and a probably much larger, but undisclosed, sum to plaintiffs.

    In 2006, Sterling paid for a newspaper ad announcing that the Donald T. Sterling Charitable Foundation would develop a “state-of-the-art $50 million dollar” project for “over 91,000 homeless people” in LA’s Skid Row neighborhood. The ad included a photo of a smiling Sterling above the quote: “Please don’t forget the children, they need our help.”

    At the time, many homeless advocates criticized the plan for being more like a mega-warehouse than a social service agency. But they need not have worried. Although Sterling spent millions of dollars to buy properties in the area, he never carried through on the homeless project. And now that the Skid Row neighborhood has gentrified — pushing many low-income people out of the area, Sterling is sitting on valuable property.

    In addition to this track record of civil rights and tenants’ rights violations, as well as blatant indifference to human suffering, Sterling has a shameful reputation as a man who abuses his employees, acknowledges paying for sex with prostitutes, and has had a string of girlfriends who live in expensive homes and drive luxury cars paid for by the real estate mogul.

    Given his reputation and this history, why would the Los Angeles NAACP honor Sterling for “lifetime achievement”? The answer? For the same reason that the NAACP is scheduled to honor Javier Angulo, Walmart’s director of community affairs, at the same May 15 banquet. Sterling and Walmart are both NAACP benefactors and the civil rights organization has been happy to take these corporation donations.

    Anyone who has read the Los Angeles Times over the past decade couldn’t help but notice the hundreds of full-page and half-page ads that Sterling puts in the newspaper to promote his philanthropic endeavors. A self-congratulatory photo of Sterling inevitably adorns these ads, along with photos of the heads of dozens of nonprofit groups in the Los Angeles area who receive Sterling’s largesse.

    http://www.citywatchla.com/lead-stor...into-the-naacp


    NBA’s ‘zero tolerance’ hypocrites feast on Sterling’s carcass
    Understand that the NBA and its team executives for years knew that Sterling was/is very different, and not in a pleasantly eccentric way. He was widely known, as in coast to coast, as a pain-in-the-arse team owner and creep — a man not worth anyone’s sympathy.

    If, for example, five years ago, you walked through the halls of the NBA offices, stopping at each office to say to its occupant, “Donald Sterling for you on line 3!” you would be met with crooked smiles, eyes rolled back, and shakes of the head. Everyone knew Sterling was, shall we say, trouble, the kind who in time lists to starboard.
    http://nypost.com/2014/05/01/nbas-ze...lings-carcass/


    Generally when someone breaks the rules, you stop playing the game with them.
    Or you play with him for years because you have no backbone or you’re too concerned with political correctness to do the right thing.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  19. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Actually, the case against Sterling at this time is not for any particular action or any direct disrespect, the case is against his free conscience thoughts.
    Hardly just that. He can think what he likes, but when his thoughts become words and are made public on an audio recording they become very public and he is accountable for them.

    So where is the golden rule of reciprocity here?
    Nowhere. It comes into play when his words are judged offensive by fans of the NBA.
    No one is saying the "personal assistant" didn't error in allowing this to be leaked. But that error doesn't absolve anyone of anything else they may have done.

    She doesn’t think he’s a racist
    She's entitled to that opinion of course.

    He has broken the golden rule many times before and the NBA and media have willfully turned their heads. They’re not turning their heads now because it’s just too sensational and you can only be a hypocrite for so long.
    So what? The argument here is not if the NBA are hypocrites. I think that is pretty well understood. Where there is lots of money there will generally be some level of hypocrisy.

    The question I am arguing is if the man got what he had coming or not. I say he did and the hypocrisy of another party doesn't modify that.

    ---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    If a prominent liberal politician, black or white, makes a racially charged statement, they are forgiven. For example, then Senator Joe Biden and candidate for President in 2008 said of fellow Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama:
    Forgiven by their own party, of course! Especially when you take pains to apologize. Sometimes what you do is so bad they kick you out of the club but generally its solidarity in the ranks.

    That is something separate from what the media does. They reported on the story, your news sources were major so called liberal sources. So you can't say it was not covered.

    The media loves conflict and democrats forgiving one another is not conflict so it makes a poor story. You can find plenty of cases of republicans getting in trouble and then apologizing and being for given and no one much cares. Contrition is boring.

    Its when two sides dig in their heels and fight, or when you have really weird scandalous details that the media jumps in on it and covers the hell out of it.

    For decades, the words "articulate", "bright" and "clean" when used to describe a black man were understood to suggest that the average black man was NOT articulate, bright, clean or good looking.
    Undoubtedly it was a racist remark. Perhaps not said with malice but certainly with condescension. But he did the smart thing and apologized profusely for it.

    If John McCain had used those words to describe Barack Obama as an unusual black candidate, it would have been the end of McCain's campaign because the liberal news media would have put every prominent Democrat on television denouncing McCain for weeks.
    1. McCain has has plenty of cases where he's been accused of racism and its been in the press and he's still with us as a senator.
    2. Campaigns don't end just because the media gives you crap. It ends because people decide what was reported matters to them.
    3. There is little reason to think McCain's supporters were too concerned what he thinks of Obama. (Though it so happens he's a gracious man of honor for the most part)

    But because it was a prominent Democrat who said it, Obama, Jesse Jackson and the rest of the Democrat establishment gave him a pass, saying he was just inaccurate. And the news media followed their lead, laying off Biden, excusing him for using "generational language".

    Add to those, Biden's known plagiarism of Britain's Neil Kinnock etc....
    What Biden did three decades ago doesn't interest a lot of people today. Fact is all that has been covered quite extensively in the so called liberal media. He lost his election at the time those things came out. Folks don't care so much now of course. Time does that.

    Ted Kennedy conspiracies are a dime a dozen and also well known and well covered. If only there was a lot more actual proof and a lot less conspiracy lip service it might go somewhere.

    All parties protect their own so long as they calculate the public won't hate them for it. Of course your opponents will see you as dirt bags, but that doesn't change no matter what you do so why care about it?

    There is so much whining and hand wringing on the right about the liberal media and its so unfair wha wha wha. Use the conservative media to put your message out. Its a free country folks. If you are smart it will stick, if not it will fall on the deaf ears of the public. And perhaps some day you will understand that the media is driven by one thing along, MONEY. They make it by selling their audience what they want to hear. Most folks want to hear juicy conflict and drama or stories that affirm their own personal narratives.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. #58
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    I have an ethical question here....

    If the man needed someone to record him so that he could remember things, was he even legally competent to give consent for the recordings to be made? I think there's a strong argument in the negative here.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  21. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  22. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,568
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Forgiven by their own party, of course! Especially when you take pains to apologize. Sometimes what you do is so bad they kick you out of the club but generally its solidarity in the ranks.
    Which is why no liberals or Dems would make much of an issue if Obama were recorded telling Michelle not to socialize with white folk. Solidarity in the liberal ranks. Solidarity in the Black ranks. Solidarity in the Democrat ranks. You're supporting my argument.

    The same with your claim that the media really only likes to cover conflict. Because Republicans generally believe in the Freedom of Association as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, and generally don't cry racism when they see it in blacks or liberals (for example, Joe Biden), there wouldn't be much conflict to report if Obama made such remarks.

    So when you claim that it would be "a monumental scandal that would set race relations back a decade at least", exactly where would the conflict be, involving what opposing groups, that the media would be interested in reporting to the extent of making it a monumental scandal?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  23. #60
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Clippers owner, my outrage

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Hardly just that. He can think what he likes, but when his thoughts become words and are made public on an audio recording they become very public and he is accountable for them.
    Did they also post and publicize Sterlings actions of how many thousands/milions of dollars he’s contributed to minority and black causes that help African Americans and minorities? Does anything really work in a vacuum?

    Nowhere. It comes into play when his words are judged offensive by fans of the NBA.
    No one is saying the "personal assistant" didn't error in allowing this to be leaked. But that error doesn't absolve anyone of anything else they may have done.
    No, it doesn’t absolve the problem, but it highlights that this is not the real problem – it’s just a current emotional politically convenient problem.

    She's entitled to that opinion of course.
    Maybe she knows something the public doesn’t know. After all she's the one who's been having all these private conversations with him.

    So what?
    So what that a national association that manages sports players that millions of children and young adults look up to as role models has been tolerant to an NBA family member for his racist views for years with no action taken?

    So what that a national association that manages sports players that millions of children and young adults look up to as role models has a policy of “no toleration for racism” except "when we decide to tolerate it and by so doing contribute toward what we absolutely don’t tolerate?"

    So what that an national association that manages sports players that millions of children and young adults look up to as role models has been a co-creator in the Donald Sterling problem?

    So what that a national association that manages sports players that millions of children and young adults look up to as role models accepted Sterling into their family years ago, and just as Sterling is obligated to maintain the terms of that family contract, the NBA is also obligated and responsible to maintain their standards and to not turn their heads by not giving him warnings or disciplines in the past when he has made racist comments.

    So what that a national association that manages sports players that millions of children and young adults look up to as role models that encourages responsibility and accountability in its players and fan base (and I am one of those fans) but yet it doesn’t act responsibly?

    So what that a national association that manages sports players that millions of children and young adults look up to as role models thinks that this whole mess is a ‘Donald Sterling’ problem and that their action to fine him and kick him out of the league deals with the real problem?

    So what that a national association that manages sports players that millions of children and young adults look up to as role models has a lot more power and influence over children and young adults who are their fans then Donald Sterling ever will?

    So what that a national association that manages sports players that millions of children and young adults look up to as role models is at the heart of this mess and that Sterling is just a pawn that they chose to tolerate out of one side of their mouth, and yet spew intolerance for racisms out of the other side?

    So what that a national association that manages sports players that millions of children and young adults look up to as role models are selectively exempt from the golden rule?

    So what that what continues to feed an untamed lion can be just as lethal as the lion? Lions can be tamed, but it takes a backbone, a will, inner conviction, standing for principles not just in words but in action; and it takes some smarts to tame a lion.

    [dramatic rant over]

    The question I am arguing is if the man got what he had coming or not. I say he did and the hypocrisy of another party doesn't modify that.
    In basketball and most sports and even organizations, players generally get some warnings before they are kicked out of the game. Maybe if the NBA had given Sterling a few warnings, a few “If you continue saying these sort of things and making racist remarks, we will have to take some action against you ….” But there was none of that, no responsible disciplinary action toward a member of their family. So no, I think the fine and kicking him out of the league in one immediate swoop without any prior action or warning notice because they were too spineless and turned the other way, demonstrates a lack of personal responsibility and integrity on their part for contributing toward co-creating this whole mess – and they should own up to it. A smaller fine, yes, but kicking him out of the league without a prior disciplinary or warning action for something that wasn't even said directly to a person, I think is emotionally over reactive, especially since they are part of the problem. A twisted mentality doesn't get resolved when we keep feeding it the same stuff that made it twisted.

    Parents who allow their child to run rampant and act against the standards of the family for years with no warning or discipline are feeding that child the very poison that the family standards protect against. With no warning and discipline they are contributing toward that child’s negative choices and their thinking process. And because they have the power, they are part of the problem. Their child does not operate in a vacuum.

    Then one day comes along and the child commits one more act of rebellion and the parents decide, “ Ok, that's it, we’re going to send you to juvenile delinquency because we just can’t tolerate this behavior any longer, even though we’ve never really given you any serious warnings and disciplines and allowed you to basically become a tyrant. Even though we've turned our heads the other way because we didn't want to deal with you because we thought we couldn't deal with you, we just can’t tolerate this any more and we don’t want you in our family any longer.“ Sure the child may be a candidate to get kicked out of the family setting; he’s become a tyrannical, self-serving snake who has little respect for others. But who fed that mentality for years?
    Last edited by eye4magic; May 6th, 2014 at 06:32 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trapped by: My outrage overschool shooting.
    By MindTrap028 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: January 13th, 2013, 11:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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