NFL Fires a Player qua Domestic Violence; morally right??

Finn dAbuzz
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 03:57 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:

Stick to the arguments rather than your fantasy of who the other speakers are. My views are not radical

Well, I could easily admonish you for the same thing Hawkeye. Wasn't it you that questioned the honesty of anyone who believes the corporate system works? It's always amusing to see someone take umbrage from a response they precipitated.

Haweye wrote:
Only 52% of the public in developed markets have a "favorable" view of corporations, compared with 72% in emerging markets such as China, Brazil, India, Mexico and Turkey. Nearly three-fifths of the public in emerging markets favor corporations that are "strong and influential" because they are "engines of innovation and economic growth." Just over one-third of the public in developed markets agree. In developed markets, 45% say corporations have "too much influence over government," compared with 30% in emerging economies.

China and the U.S. have especially glaring—and perhaps surprising—differences. The U.S. public is divided on whether corporations are a source of "hope" (36%) or "fear" (37%). In China they have far fewer concerns, with 84% saying corporations are a source of "hope." More than half (51%) of the U.S. public says "strong and influential" corporations are "bad," even if they are promoting innovation and growth. In China 74% embrace strong corporations as "good."

There is a notable Main Street vs. C-Suite divide, especially in developed economies. Fifty-eight percent of developed-economy business leaders, compared with only 44% of the public, say corporations are a source of "hope" not "fear." And the general population has doubts about "strong and influential" corporations, with only 35% in developed markets saying they are a "good thing." In contrast, 51% of executives favor them.


With these kinds of numbers criticism of the current economic system can not be dismissed without response.

Any when have I dismissed such criticism without response?

What I'm not going to take very seriously though is hyperbolic criticism that is based on exaggerated concerns.

If the polling you've provided tells us anything, it's either that the view of corporations as greedy, human-grinding monsters is exaggerated or that a majority of the people in developed countries and a large majority of people in developing countries have been completely brain-washed by the monsters or don't have a clue.

What these numbers tell me is that once a country's economy has become powerful and stable, the number of people who have the luxury of finding fault with it's engine increases. Certainly you're not suggesting that corporations in emerging markets are somehow more benign that those in the US and Europe, are you?

Everyone wants and needs a bad guy, especially people who tell and sell stories. If you grow up in a society where the "bad guy" in movies and books is very often a big bad corporation, you don't need to have any personal experience with them to view them in a negative light.

As for my view of your experience with Corporate America, it may be inaccurate but it's hardly fantastic, unless everything you write is a fantasy. As someone who has spent almost 40 years immersed in Corporate America, with half of that time at the senior levels of executive management, I have personal experience, and an interest to remain as informed as I can on how corporations throughout America operate. What you write suggests that your personal experience is either very limited or second-hand. Again, this might be inaccurate but it's hardly fantastic.

I understand the flaws in the system, but I also understand that overall it works very well (and I assure you that I am being honest here), and the fact that a minority of people in developed countries (albeit an admittedly large minority) don't trust or have doubts about corporations, doesn't mean the system isn't working.

0 Replies
Finn dAbuzz
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 04:36 pm
It's nice of you to play the peace-maker David, but the fact of the matter is that I already apologized for what I said in reference to izzy''s wife, and in the very thread I said it. What I wrote was something to the effect of "it's no wonder your wife left you," or "it's no wonder you're no longer married." Izzy replied that his wife had passed away of an illness.

I immediately replied that I didn't know that and that if I had, I wouldn't have written what I did. I also apologized for writing it, but that wasn't good enough for izzy. He insisted I knew about his wife's demise and that I was deliberately being cruel. I tried to convince him that I did not, but he would have none of it. Since then he has been repeatedly accusing me of insulting his deceased wife. Even if he is right that I knew he wife had passed (which I assure you I did not), how what I wrote to him translates to insulting his wife is beyond me. In any case I apologized for what I did write and see no point in doing so again and certainly not for doing something I never did, insulting his wife.

As for comments about his son, these are total figments of his fevered mind. More than once, I'm sure, I've written that I do not want to see a national healthcare system like the UK's in the United States. Somehow izzy has interpreted that to mean I "hate" the UK health system, but that's only the beginning. Somewhere along the line he has come up with the fantastic notion that I wrote that I wished or hoped his son (who apparently has received and perhaps may still receives medical care through the UK health system) would die. This is either the product of a troubled mind or a blatant lie. I believe it's the latter and I have absolutely no intention of apologizing to him for something I never even came close to writing. My God, even if I had written in oversized capital letters that I hated and despised the NHS with every fiber of my being, how does that possibly translate into hoping a child dies?

Again, and again, I have challenged izzy to either produce the offending posts or stop his lying accusations about me in this forum and I've already told you his response. Now you've seen it's companion "You know exactly what you said, and you like to bring it up, because you don't want me to forget it."

So after he repeatedly impugned my character in this forum by writing his lies about me, I'm at fault for bringing them up. That's pretty damned rich, don't you think?

As you know there is no way to prove a negative. Even if I found every comment I have ever made in this forum that could even remotely be connected to izzy, his family, and the NHS, and copied them into one post in an effort to prove he is lying, I'm sure his response would be that I had left the ones he's complained about out, and that he wasn't going to produce them because that's "my work."

So, this is a long (and izzy would say "boring") way of telling you:

Thank you but I don't think I will.

Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2014 05:47 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Explain away as much as you li9ke. Your argument is that I misinterpreted what you said. I saw you for what you are.

Note that I kept things neutral, deliberately avoiding details, posting something that could easily be put down to a private disagreement. You however, delight in reminding me that my wife is dead, and my son came close to death.

You really are beneath contempt.
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2014 04:33 am
izzy sorry about your wife....I didn't read the comment but that is a low blow.
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2014 08:32 am
Thanks, it's just over ten years now, I came to terms with it years ago, but that's really appreciated.
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2014 04:49 pm
Speaking as a person who has had several out-of-body experiences,
I know for a fact that conscious and comfortable life
is NOT dependent for its existence upon a functioning human body.

The interruption in our communication with our loved ones
is only temporary. I wish that my out-of-body experiences
had lasted longer than thay did. Some people who have gotten
back in their human bodies compare it to getting put back in jail.

0 Replies
Finn dAbuzz
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2014 07:38 pm
I really do apologize if bringing up the details of our disagreement has caused you pain, because whether or not you believe it, I have never wished or intended to cause you pain. However, the truth is that for a long stretch of time here you were not so circumspect about revealing those details when you chose to defame me by publicly lying about what I wrote. You have cast me in bad light that I do not deserve, no matter what you argue, and the fact that tragedies in your life are involved doesn't excuse your behavior. You've succeeded, as demonstrated, by buttermilk's comment to stain my character unjustly, and I see from here that you intend to continue to attempt to do so with or without details.

I am an anonymous figure here so the damage caused by your malignment is legally non-existent and thus I have no recourse but to simply defend my character when you attack it. Unfortunately that cannot be done without fully explaining the nature of your attacks. I am not going to allow you to hamstring my ability to defend myself by invoking your pain which you are exacerbating.

If my explaining the situation in detail truly pains you then the solution is simple, cease your baseless attacks in this vein (which for honesty's sake alone you should have done so long ago) and I will not be forced to defend myself.

And allow me to remind you for a final time that if you find me beneath contempt, and truly wish not to see any of my "hateful" posts the "ignore" feature handily solves your problem. That you have not availed yourself of it before now belies your claims.

I'm done with this topic unless you insist on continuing to bring it up.
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2014 01:29 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
You're the one who keeps bringing it up, and despite your assurances, I don't think you've any intention of stopping, maybe pausing for a while but that's about it.
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 06:09 pm
izzythepush wrote:

You're the one who keeps bringing it up, and despite your assurances, I don't think you've any intention of stopping, maybe pausing for a while but that's about it.

Izzy...give it up. This guys are warped....you're not.
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 06:32 pm
Latasha Wilson-Batch is one in a group of women pushing the NFL to allow players' wives a voice in the leagues discussion about domestic violence, in light of recent players being accused of abuse.

"We can offer a lot, we are the women that share stories and talk to each other and understand what goes on behind closed doors a lot," said Wilson-Batch, the wife of former Steelers quarterback Charlie Batch.

Wilson-Batch said the women have sent two letters to the NFL, asking to be a part of the conversation about a new domestic violence policy, but they have not heard back from Commissioner Roger Goodell. She said the women want to ensure that the league considers the victims when they create a policy

Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/nfl-wives-want-role-in-leagues-domestic-violence-policy/28320388#ixzz3Eqg6OVMs

NO NO NO, the victim minders are never going to go for allowing these victims and potential victims to have a voice in the conversation. All too often victims refuse to follow the script handed to them by the minders, and we cant have that.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 01:27 am
Thank you.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2014 12:54 am
Word of the alleged attack came just days after attorney Gloria Allred held a news conference saying she had a client who was sexually assaulted by an NFL player. Allred didn't name her client, the player, the team he played for or the city where it was supposed to have taken place. She said the player participated in the team's game the day following the alleged assault.
"Did the NFL allow the player to play yesterday with knowledge of the rape allegation?" her Monday letter states. "The NFL Commissioner has been saying that they take allegations of violence against women seriously and they indicate that they are turning over a new leaf, but here, even though a rape allegation should have been reported to them it was not and what are they doing about that?"


That is how it is supposed to work of course, if a female calls up the NFL and says that a particular player sexually assaulted her he should not play till and unless he clears his name. The NFL does not get it....WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS!!
0 Replies
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 09:19 pm
Nearly a half-century after the women’s movement called attention to intimate partner violence, there’s no consensus around why it happens, let alone how to prevent it. Some programs have been shown to change the way men view women, but few, if any, have proven to change abusive behavior—and none have been shown to work in hard cases or over the long term.

“The technical social science term for this is: Oy,” said Michael Kimmel, a sociologist at Stony Brook University, where he directs the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities. “There is very little reliable evidence that says that these programs are uniformly or even partially successful.”


And after the commish did a nationally televised press conference where he said that the major sin of the NFL to that point was not getting enough expert guidance.


And a lie.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Should cheerleading be a sport? - Discussion by joefromchicago
Are You Ready For Fantasy Baseball - 2009? - Discussion by realjohnboy
tennis grip - Question by madalina
How much faster could Usain Bolt have gone? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sochi Olympics a Resounding Success - Discussion by gungasnake
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/23/2021 at 09:47:07