dc. Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Let's reset and offer an analogous situation and see if we can get to the point here. And perhaps some clarity. Scenario: The Baltimore Ravens want to host a party celebrating the life of Art Donovan. Among those invited to attend and perform at the event are many of Art Donovan's favorite bands and oldtime actors. Perhaps one of those bands was The Eagles. And so The Eagles are enlisted to play at the Art Donovan celebration in December. In November, Joe Walsh, who was to appear with The Eagles, makes some wild remarks about drug usage and alcoholism and his wild life on the road; he's raunchy and a little vulgar in describing how he likes to party it up even in his old age. Are the Ravens right to ask Walsh and/or The Eagles to no longer perform at the celebration? -- Your argument, as I understand it, is that the Ravens would be playing the PC Police and should care less. Walsh is being censored and the Ravens are commie sympathizers who only want to invite people who agree with them. And hell, Art loved his beer too - how do we know if Art would even care? He loved Joe Walsh, right? And it's a football game - the fans are all drunks and womanizers anyway! -- My argument is that the Ravens can do whatever they want. They are hosting the party. If they want a "family atmosphere" and think that Walsh is going to hinder that, they are more than entitled to cut Walsh and the band. Are they censoring Walsh? Technically, perhaps you could make that argument. More precisely, they are fairly exercising their own right to speech: to decide who and what appears under their name. -- Lastly, I think we have more agreement here than you realize -- but you're the one who, in my view, is going too black and white. Would I think the Ravens are going too far in disinviting the band? Probably. From a practical standpoint: rockstars are wild and we all know it, so why is Walsh getting in trouble for saying it? If you want a clean and family friendly event, leave the rockbands at home period. However, this issue is too easy when the debate is about being a wild rockstar. If Walsh was stating racist or homophobic or anti-semitic concepts, I'd probably be a little more supportive of the Ravens. I associate with the Ravens and I don't want to associate with that kind of thought, speech or action. I would want the Ravens to say "No, we do not condone that." -- So, what I want to ask, very legitimately is this... where do you draw the line? McClurkin's words weren't enough (in some ways, I agree with you - I don't see them as overtly "anti-gay" or hurting the values of the concert). Riley Cooper's words weren't enough either, though, to make you say "the Eagles are justified." So, at what point is the City of DC or the Eagles football organization justified in distancing themselves from language or action they don't like? Give me an example. Fill me in. We agree that legally they have the right. We disagree about what is "PC Police" going too far and what isn't. So, help me find "the line" in your book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldschool739 Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 No you don't understand my point of view at all dc....but that's ok, 4 books in the bible tell the same stories but from a little different viewpoint....does that mean 3 were wrong, no...It simply means that some noticed different things that stood out to them, during the same event.... You see it from one vantage point and I see it from another....I can live with that ..... Gooooo Ravens....REPEAT !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted August 14, 2013 Author Share Posted August 14, 2013 I just don't understand your vantage point at all. What's wrong with my summary of your view above? Or what example can you give me to help me understand? That's where I'm really lost. In the other conversations, things have gone "wrong" when you've gone from "We disagree" to "the world is out to get us!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldcrow Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 No you don't understand my point of view at all dc....but that's ok, 4 books in the bible tell the same stories but from a little different viewpoint....does that mean 3 were wrong, no...It simply means that some noticed different things that stood out to them, during the same event....You see it from one vantage point and I see it from another....I can live with that ..... Gooooo Ravens....REPEAT !!!!LOLa person who claims to be a man and not a weakling referencing the bibleTALK ABOUT WEAKyou can take that fable and abuse it to your advantage all you want, but it reality,it proves how weak mentally and physically you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldschool739 Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 LOL a person who claims to be a man and not a weakling referencing the bible TALK ABOUT WEAK you can take that fable and abuse it to your advantage all you want, but it reality,it proves how weak mentally and physically you are. And this mentally challenged response coming from a weakling who is afraid to even tell whether it is a male or female talking..."Gender-not telling"....Go play with your blocks, Corky...no, the round one does not go in the square hole... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldschool739 Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 I just don't understand your vantage point at all. What's wrong with my summary of your view above? Or what example can you give me to help me understand? That's where I'm really lost. In the other conversations, things have gone "wrong" when you've gone from "We disagree" to "the world is out to get us!" Several things but all are up for interpretation....1.you can't compare this preacher who did nothing violent or destructive to a drunken man in a rage. 2.It is an event celebrating another preacher and he was invited to come and then uninvited because of his testimony on his website....He wasn't there insulting anyone, and was completely in line with their faith.... 3. I never said it was illegal or that a company or org., couldn't censor anything they think is harmful to their image, but that especially in this case, it was unjust.... Let's put this baby to rest now....It's football tonite .......Gooooo Ravens !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldcrow Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 And this mentally challenged response coming from a weakling who is afraid to even tell whether it is a male or female talking..."Gender-not telling"....Go play with your blocks, Corky...no, the round one does not go in the square hole...HAHATALK ABOUT A CRUTCH!!!Boring is your dna and your mentalityvisit my page anytime rednecklove seeing your kind die offgene by gene by gene you cry like a little baby "MOMMY I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT WORD!!!!" MOMMY MOMMY WHY DO OTHERS GET TO SAY THAT AND I CAN'T??? WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! you're a simpleton AND an embarrassment to your nation,race and other fans of the ravens.You're not a patriot , just an UGLY person in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldschool739 Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 HAHATALK ABOUT A CRUTCH!!!Boring is your dna and your mentalityvisit my page anytime rednecklove seeing your kind die offgene by gene by gene you cry like a little baby "MOMMY I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT WORD!!!!" MOMMY MOMMY WHY DO OTHERS GET TO SAY THAT AND I CAN'T??? WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! you're a simpleton AND an embarrassment to your nation,race and other fans of the ravens.You're not a patriot , just an UGLY person in America.Drink some prune juice Gramps/Granny, it might help get your personality out where it belongs.....Flussssssssssshhhh !!!!...Ahhh there you go !!!! SB Champs !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts