Donald Sterling scandal

Yeah.  So what?   Why do you think that the other owners are coming down so hard on Sterling?  It's because if they tolerate his behavior, it will cost them money.  He's managed to alienate a whole lot of sports fans, and the other owners aren't going to alienate their fans by sitting on their hands and doing nothing about it.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Tell me, edge – do you consider the players in the below examples to have demonstrated ‘good moral character’?[/b]

According to reports, Kobe had an average of ten affairs per year during the marriage.

Fathering illegitimate children isn't exclusive to the NBA, but a few basketball stars raised it to an art form. For a time, Shawn Kemp -- father to seven children by six different women -- was the standard-bearer, but hall-of-famer Calvin Murphy was later revealed to have 14 kids by nine different women.

Magic Johnson told reporters "After I arrived in L.A. in 1979, I did my best to accommodate as many women as I could -- most of them through unprotected sex."

Wilt Chamberlain famously boasted he'd had approximately 20,000 sexual partners in his lifetime.

Of course not and neither am I stupid enough to equate having sexual affairs and being anti gay with virulent racism....like you did.

I’m not ‘equating’ anything with anything. But these examples of the behavior of certain players would, I believe, also be proscribed by the constitution of the NBA, yet these players, to the best of my knowledge, have never faced disciplinary action for this behavior, mainly because these players shovel incredible amounts of money into the pockets of those who would discipline them.

Maybe the billionaire owners who themselves have probably had affairs don't give give a shit. And besides, I really doubt that NBA constitutin and bylaws prohibit owners and players from having sexual affairs. The fans don't care, I don't care, why do you? WTF, business is of yours?
The point is jack, having an affair is not the same thing as being a racist jackass owner, ie Donald Sterling.

For some reason that fact keeps going over your head...why is that?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah.  So what?   Why do you think that the other owners are coming down so hard on Sterling?  It's because if they tolerate his behavior, it will cost them money.  

We agree on that.
Do we also agree on the fact that, conversely, if the behavior of some of the best players is not tolerated and they are bounced from the league, due to the morals clause, for behaving like rutting animals, that it will cost the owners money, because fans will not turn out to watch a bunch of scrubs play?
And do we agree on the fact that the other owners wouldn’t give a flying fuck what Sterling said (other than a couple of days of tut-tutting and “Oh, how terrible!” press statements) if they didn’t think it was going to cost them money?

Yeah.  I agree with both of those statements. In fact, in professional sports, "morals clauses" are really about behavior that has a negative impact on the bottom line.

Still, it's kind of ironic that you brought up affairs by the players when Sterling was openly keeping a mistress.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

 
Maybe the billionaire owners who themselves have probably had affairs don't give give a shit. And besides, I really doubt that NBA constitutin and bylaws prohibit owners and players from having sexual affairs. The fans don't care, I don't care, why do you? WTF, business is of yours?

WTF business is it of yours, or anyone else's, if a private citizen makes racist statements in the privacy of his own home?

Personally, I don't think it should be anybody's business, but Sterling is a public figure, and he really doesn't have the privacy rights that a "private citizen" does...

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

 
Maybe the billionaire owners who themselves have probably had affairs don't give give a shit. And besides, I really doubt that NBA constitutin and bylaws prohibit owners and players from having sexual affairs. The fans don't care, I don't care, why do you? WTF, business is of yours?

WTF business is it of yours, or anyone else's, if a private citizen makes racist statements in the privacy of his own home?

What was that again?

happy jack wrote:

Yes, I do support the NBA in this case. It is well within the realm of its operators to establish their own organizational philosophy and to insist that its members adhere to it.

The End

happy jack wrote:

Imagine all you want.

I wouldn't have to if you would actually answer the question.  I've never met an objection to gay marriage that wasn't religiously based.  You apparently have; I'm curious to find out what that would be.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

 
Maybe the billionaire owners who themselves have probably had affairs don't give give a shit. And besides, I really doubt that NBA constitutin and bylaws prohibit owners and players from having sexual affairs. The fans don't care, I don't care, why do you? WTF, business is of yours?

WTF business is it of yours, or anyone else's, if a private citizen makes racist statements in the privacy of his own home?

Personally, I don't think it should be anybody's business, but Sterling is a public figure, and he really doesn't have the privacy rights that a "private citizen" does...

The players are also public figures and, as such, by your standards, they may be colonoscopically scrutinized by the general public.

A "public figure" is a legal definition. Legally, he doesn't have the same privacy rights as a private citizen.

It has nothing at all to do with "my standards."  What part of "Personally, I don't think it should be anybody's business," don't you get?

happy jack wrote:

The people I’ve encountered who oppose homosexuality have been those who believe themselves too macho to tolerate it, or those who claim to have an actual revulsion to homosexual acts.

"Ew gross!" will never make for sound and rational national policy.  I'm also unaware of any legal basis to do so, especially considering a ban on gay marriage won't do anything to actually stop the homosexual acts making such intellectual six year olds squeamish, rendering the entire argument moot.  People will still fuck and make out regardless of marriage, so not letting them do so only serves as a punishment, robbing them of the legal protection you and I enjoy with narcissism as the only justification. "Fuck 'em, they're gay, and I don't like it".  It's the very essence of "tyranny of the majority". The religious argument I understand, because religion is inherently retarded, but the "ew gross" defense really is nothing but pure narcissism and bigotry, and in no way "reasonable".

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

 
Maybe the billionaire owners who themselves have probably had affairs don't give give a shit. And besides, I really doubt that NBA constitutin and bylaws prohibit owners and players from having sexual affairs. The fans don't care, I don't care, why do you? WTF, business is of yours?

WTF business is it of yours, or anyone else's, if a private citizen makes racist statements in the privacy of his own home?

Personally, I don't think it should be anybody's business, but Sterling is a public figure, and he really doesn't have the privacy rights that a "private citizen" does...

The players are also public figures and, as such, by your standards, they may be colonoscopically scrutinized by the general public.

A "public figure" is a legal definition. Legally, he doesn't have the same privacy rights as a private citizen.  

It has nothing at all to do with "my standards."  What part of "Personally, I don't think it should be anybody's business," don't you get?

The "standards" to which I was referring are the ones you referenced in regard to public figures, i.e., that they don't have the same privacy rights as private citizens. I was making the point that the players would also fall under the umbrella of 'public figures', maybe even more so than the owners.

Yeah. Well I don't think that there is any question that the players are "public figures." What's your point?

happy jack wrote:

The players are every bit the public figures you claim Sterling to be, yet the NBA completely ignores their very public, not private, indiscretions and moral failings.

Yep, and so does most of the public.

edge540 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

A portion of the players' responsibilities to uphold the rules of the NBA:

All Players shall be of good moral character and possess qualities which will make them proper members of their respective teams.

And?   What the hell has this to do with comparing Sterling to a Hobby Lobby employee?

Looks like our resident troll is now claiming that virulent racism, being anti gay, and having affairs is all the same thing.

One man, Sterling, privately makes some stupid, racist statements, probably hurting someone's feelings for a few minutes, and the NBA invokes severe sanctions against him.

Fathering illegitimate children isn't exclusive to the NBA, but a few basketball stars raised it to an art form. For a time, Shawn Kemp -- father to seven children by six different women -- was the standard-bearer, but hall-of-famer Calvin Murphy was later revealed to have 14 kids by nine different women.

A couple of other members of the NBA sire a string of 21 children and leave them fatherless, and the NBA yawns.
Who, edge, in your opinion, has a better chance of having a ruined life?
Someone who may have read or heard one of Sterling's stupid statements?
Or one of those 21 fatherless children?
Who, edge, in your opinion, has actually harmed more people?
Sterling or the 'studs'?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

 
Maybe the billionaire owners who themselves have probably had affairs don't give give a shit. And besides, I really doubt that NBA constitutin and bylaws prohibit owners and players from having sexual affairs. The fans don't care, I don't care, why do you? WTF, business is of yours?

WTF business is it of yours, or anyone else's, if a private citizen makes racist statements in the privacy of his own home?

Personally, I don't think it should be anybody's business, but Sterling is a public figure, and he really doesn't have the privacy rights that a "private citizen" does...

The players are also public figures and, as such, by your standards, they may be colonoscopically scrutinized by the general public.

A "public figure" is a legal definition. Legally, he doesn't have the same privacy rights as a private citizen.  

It has nothing at all to do with "my standards."  What part of "Personally, I don't think it should be anybody's business," don't you get?

The "standards" to which I was referring are the ones you referenced in regard to public figures, i.e., that they don't have the same privacy rights as private citizens. I was making the point that the players would also fall under the umbrella of 'public figures', maybe even more so than the owners.

Yeah. Well I don't think that there is any question that the players are "public figures."  What's your point?

Nothing more than the point I made a few posts back:

happy jack wrote:

 

A portion of the players' responsibilities is to uphold the rules of the NBA:

All Players shall be of good moral character and possess qualities which will make them proper members of their respective teams.

If the NBA is truly sincere about upholding their constitution and sweeping the undesirables out of their organization, then, to paraphrase Roy Scheider, "They're gonna need a bigger broom."
Unfortunately, they don't have the guts.

The players are every bit the public figures you claim Sterling to be, yet the NBA completely ignores their very public, not private, indiscretions and moral failings.

Yeah. Well I thought that we were talking strictly about the right to personal privacy.  I thought that we'd already agreed about the NBA's motives... again, it's about the money.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   

Yeah. Well I thought that we were talking strictly about the right to personal privacy.  I thought that we'd already agreed about the NBA's motives... again, it's about the money.

I think that the line drawn for legal purposes between a private and a public figure will be getting very blurry in the not too distant future. Interactive social media has the ability to essentially force a private party into very public situations, whether that party goes willingly or unwillingly. The legal definition of 'public figure' will soon be getting an extreme workout, I believe.

Personally, I think the whole situation sucks. I think that we should expand privacy rights to include public figures, not the other way around. For example,the paparazzi that hound many celebrities are nothing more than glorified stalkers, IMHO. To be sure, there are "celebrities" that thrive on all the attention, but I'm sure that there are many that would just like to be left the hell alone.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

   

Yeah. Well I thought that we were talking strictly about the right to personal privacy.  I thought that we'd already agreed about the NBA's motives... again, it's about the money.

I think that the line drawn for legal purposes between a private and a public figure will be getting very blurry in the not too distant future. Interactive social media has the ability to essentially force a private party into very public situations, whether that party goes willingly or unwillingly. The legal definition of 'public figure' will soon be getting an extreme workout, I believe.

Personally, I think the whole situation sucks.  I think that we should expand privacy rights to include public figures, not the other way around.  For example,the paparazzi that hound many celebrities are nothing more than glorified stalkers, IMHO.  To be sure, there are "celebrities" that thrive on all the attention, but I'm sure that there are many that would just like to be left the hell alone.

I agree. The only ones who might deserve a little more scrutiny are the public servants whose salaries we pay, but the scrutiny should extend only to their official capacities; their private lives should remain as private as they choose.

Agreed... except for politicians who publicly attack others for doing things that they do themselves, in private.