In the sense that he would rather have the team instead of the money then yes, the NBA is seeking ways to force him to give up his property.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Printable View
In the sense that he would rather have the team instead of the money then yes, the NBA is seeking ways to force him to give up his property.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
The government should step in and tell this organization what it can and cannot do, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What you are missing is that the phrase "the ends justify the means" implies that the means are immoral, bad, evil and the only way to justify them is by having a good result from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I don't believe that outing Mr. Sterling, Paula Deen or Bundy for racism is immoral, bad or evil or that it requires justification.
What did I just say about warping my words? I even brought it up and you do it immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What you just wrote is flat out wrong. Do you do this on purpose or you really don't get it? It's baffling. I write that although a liberal MAY want to help Mr. Sterling get over his racism, this has nothing to do with whether he is an NBA owner or not. They are not conditional upon each other.
I agree. We need government regulation in the NBA.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I don't believe anyone has said outing Sterling as a racist is bad. The question is how was he outed? Is it okay to violate his privacy as long as it exposes him to be a racist? Is it okay to use this exchange between his girlfriend as an excuse to get him removed from the NBA permanently?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You keep tap dancing over these issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
???Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I think you're just creating brand new fallacies at this point.
Tg01, some advice. You'll find life a lot less confusing when you stop trying so hard to put a square peg in a round hole. Trust me, life will be a lot easier if you just accept things for what they simply are.
He has no inherent rights to privacy in this situation. You're making that up. I even posted a quote from Massachusetts where perverts were taking pictures up women's skirts and it was legal. You'd think that woman would have a right to wear a skirt and not be violated that way but it wasn't the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
California says that both parties have to be aware of the recording. It sounds like they both were. After that either party can make it public.
As for the brand new fallacies thing, you're just wrong again. Of course. I know you do it on purpose, I just don't understand why you would want to.
Talk about making things up. Is that actually what the California law says? As long as both people are aware of the recording either party can do whatever they want with it despite the intended purposes of said recording?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So if a man and a woman want to make a sex tape together for their own private use then the man gets mad at her and uploads the tape on the internet you feel the man did nothing wrong?
In any event that's why Ker_Thwap didn't want to make this a legal discussion but rather a moral discussion.
Even if this chick was perfectly within her rights to do what she did do you feel from a moral perspective it was the right thing to do?
It is two party consent. Most states are single party meaning that only one person has to be aware the conversation's being recorded. This means you can't tape the neighbors phone calls but you can tape your own. I don't know if she had the right to release it. One article I read said that she did have the right to release it since they were both aware it was being recorded but I can't find it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Regarding the morality, I don't view this as right and wrong in that way. This situation is not so absolute. These were two consenting adults in a dysfunctional relationship that went bad very publicly.
Too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap
No, but if I go out of my way to explain the incident and don't mention it, it would be reasonable to assume it didn't happen. This is obviously only valid in the situations where the potential offender has no power over the potential victim, so if the girlfriend is one of those MS-13 types all bets are off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'll explain this entire situation to you and Ker_Thwap. Suppose you had a tape of that man uploading the tape, and that the police can't do anything about it because for some insane reason they don't have universal surveillance. What to do? You have proof the man is a scumbag that is not admissible in a court of law... but the court of public opinion, aha!Quote:
Talk about making things up. Is that actually what the California law says? As long as both people are aware of the recording either party can do whatever they want with it despite the intended purposes of said recording?
So if a man and a woman want to make a sex tape together for their own private use then the man gets mad at her and uploads the tape on the internet you feel the man did nothing wrong?
In any event that's why Ker_Thwap didn't want to make this a legal discussion but rather a moral discussion.
Even if this chick was perfectly within her rights to do what she did do you feel from a moral perspective it was the right thing to do?
Suppose you're a police officer, and you have a warrant for a kidnapper's arrest. You break into his home, drag him out in handcuffs, and put him in a cell for the rest of his life.
OMG YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING AS HE DID! YOU'RE NO DIFFERENT! ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS!?!?
The word you're groping for is "context". Context, Terry. Context.
So, if a private organization kicks you out for being a bigot and that's ok, can they keep you and tell everyone to take a hike and be just as ok?Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs