So you would have to agree that the commissioner knows far more detail about this case than any of us, though. Accepting that fact, how can you possibly say that this is a bad decision because it opens the door to suspensionspredicated on baseless accusations? The implication there is that the commish is issuing a suspension founded on unsubstantiated allegations, when, by your own argument, we don't know what the facts are. Given that the commish knows substantially more about the case than we do, I think its more than fair to surmise that it is at minimum PROBABLE that the suspension was substantiated by more than speculation and hollow claims.
considering it's one against four, I think I more then held my own (and I shut you up a while ago) :wink:
I got tired of watching you be wrong after every post and realized it was draft day. Committing to a failing argument isn't holing your own. It's just sad.
If you say so, all I know is no one has refuted the logic of my main points yet. What people HAVE done is resort to rash judgements of my intellect and take my writing horribly out of context at the same time. It's all good though, I wouldn't expect anything less when endorsing a contrarian point of view.
Yeah . . . It's an awful slippery slope we are going down when we have the commissioner of the NFL conducting investigations into alleged accusations of OFF THE FIELD INCIDENTS, and then, without divulging the specific findings of his 'investigation', implementing suspensions on players who were never even charged with legal misconduct. I guess I'll end it on this point . . . I find that to be the basis of a dangerous precedent that could have unforseen consequences in the future. Anyway, I'm done with this thread. I'll let you have the last word if you wish. happy draft day. Go Jets.
so, you are now contending the NFL should only investigate on-field issues and should not be concerned with off-field issues? if I am mistaken, please explain under what circumstances the league should investigate off-field behaviors. of course, if you rationalize one instance of investigating off-field issues but condemn another, that would be an inconsistent position, and logic requires consistency, that all off-field issues are approached identically. so, logically, either the league has the right and authority to investigate off-field issues, and thus doing so isn't a slippery slope, or it is as you assert. and if you assert the latter, to be logical, you would then have to be opposed to the league investigating any off-field behavior or incidents. that of course is if you are being logical. of course, you haven't been to this point and that is why nobody has refuted your logic -- because it doesn't exist. your arguments lack logic, so we don't have to refute them we simply have to point out the lack of logic that your argument possesses as has been done. your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't equate to it not existing. so, answer the above question directly. are you opposed to the league investigating and addressing all off-field behavior and the extent of their interest should simply be on-field issues? because it can't be a slippery slope if it is acceptable to investigate and address any type of off-field issue. all you have done is attempt to pass yourself off as some sort of enlightened person who sees the situation differently and that difference somehow speaks favorably of you. it doesn't. all you have shown is your interest to be contrary and illogical.
No, I'm not contending that. (Do you take anything, WITHIN THE CONTEXT WITH WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN?) Listen, I'm quite tired of holding your hand through fundamental reading comprehension of the English language. Your attempt at quippy remarks, while somewhat amusing, are trite and intellectually vapid. Enjoy your night, Happy Draft Day, and Go JETS.
1) As to the bolded, if you want insights into my perspective regarding the argument i have been engaged in, simply go back and read the countless posts I have submitted in this thread . . . Didn't mean to be "surly" just annoyed to have had to answered the same question over and over again. 2) As to your hypothetical, I would suggest that any video tape of criminal activity (such as involvement with a prostitute) would surely be grounds for charges being filed by the appropriate law enforcement authorities. I would simply leave it to them, and I can assure you, that if the commissioner came across such a tape, he would leave that tape to the authorities as well. And then, after the legal proceedings have taken their course, I'm sure a suspention would ensue and I would have no problem with it. (Although, I happen to think prostitution should not be illegal but that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand) 3) Anyway, I'm done with this thread (i just wanted to respond to you because I realized I had unintentionally ignored your post). I've said my peace on the Roethlisberger matter. Happy draft day. GO JETS
I'm outta here fellas. We'll simply have to agree to disagree. No hard feelings. Peace. GO JETS TONIGHT.
there is no context, your position requires you to either apply it absolutely and logically, even though the outcome is ridiculous, or attempt to justify applying it inconsistently and illogically as it suits you. your choice. you've chosen not to and instead hide behind an ad hominem and hope nobody notices.
I like Goodell. He was the guy who came in when the NFL was a mess as far as off the field issues and he had to be strict to change the culture. The NFL image was horrible and because of that, goodell basically had to go to the furthest side of the spectrum. he believes in 2nd chances but he lets you know if you fuck up, you're going to pay for it. Fact is, no one knows what really happened with Ben except Ben and the girl. It could have been a drunken stooper and he mistakenly came on to her or she could have been a total cock tease and put herself in a horrible position when it came to actually having sex. who knows, there are so many scenarios. so people who are saying he raped her blah blah blah, have no fuckin clue what they're talking about. No one knows BUT....the point is, he already had a previous issue (although it seemed baseless) with another girl suing him for sexual assault. You think he would be extremely careful in how he handled these situations after. I think the fact he had been through something similar, albeit in a civil court setting, to put himself in this position again was the reason he was suspended (as long as he was). Just because you're not violating the law, doesn't mean you can't get suspended/fined as is the case of inappropriate on field behavior and failing drug tests. This is just an extension of that. The NFL wants to hold players accountable for their actions and be professional. When they get in trouble it's big news coverage and casts the league in a negative light. That eventually means revenue lost and other consequences
You are completely clueless. Do you know what happens to the victim during a rape trial? She's forced by both sides to revist the crime. In front of a courtroom full of people with their eyes focused on her. She gets to describe every sickening thrust of the man into her body, all while trying to convince 12 people she isn't lying, especially when the defense grills her in an effort to discredit her. The FBI estimates that only around 37% of rapes committed are even reported. This is largely attributed to two things: 1) fear of reprisal by the attacker, and 2) the public humiliation. You are completely clueless. Oh you're right. You just don't know why. I was given a week's detention for arguing with protesters over a strip club when I was in high school. I almost got suspended for it. Given the school I attended, I was expected to hold myself to a higher standard, and more than anything, not drag my school through the mud. You are completely clueless. For a guy whose entire argument is based on hypotheticals, you sure do knock others' down pretty quick, huh? The point is, if you were put in the public eye, you'd lose your job. Whether you were charged or not. If your face is on tv, and allegations like Ben's were mentioned, you'd be out of work. Fantastic post. Absolutely brilliant. Well said. So you acknowledge that the Commission has the right to mete out justice in this situation. You acknowledge that it wasn't necessarily the rape that the suspension came from. You acknowledge you haven't the slightest idea where the suspension came from. Yet you dispute it? Ummm...no. Ummm...yeah. So...the league should now reveal their findings of fact, independent of the work done by the police (including private conversations with Ben himself in a non-Mirandized setting) for all the world to hear, in order to justify the suspension levied? Even if that information is damning to Rothlisberger after he's already been cleared of the charges? Speaking of dangerous precedents... The Swiss designed a cheese after your argument. No one is misunderstanding or misrepresenting your arguments. Everyone is just notifying you that you're completely wrong. You just don't listen. No. We'll simply have to agree that you're clueless.
I think his suspension was racist. :breakdance: Seriously, though, I don't think it's excessive. Goodell wussed out on Belichick (which he did), screwed up on Pacman Jones, which of course opened up the door for Michael Vick, but I don't think he's wrong on this one. The guy is a loaded weapon. People in the REAL WORLD are subject to discipline everyday, so why should Roethlisberger be any different? Oh, and I almost spit out my coffee over his livelihood.
uhm, I'd say it was immature to make a post referring to me as "clueless" a day after I said I was done with the argument. The "debate" has long been a circular one, bereft of any new insights or valuable talking points. My post was just calling a spade a spade.
welcome back. you weren't gone for long. couldn't stand the thought of someone else having the last word?
Actually, I'd suggest it was the other way around, considering I just got replied to by someone who I wasn't even conversing with anymore. Good stuff. :up:
