Huh?sleeper;1529229 wrote:Please point out to me in the constitution where being offended grants you additional rights. It doesn't, nice logic fail. LOL
Yes, absolutely.Scarlet_Buckeye;1527581 wrote:So if Dan Snyder pleases to name his team "The Washington N*ggers" you think he should be free to do so?
Naggers would be offensive to women.Scarlet_Buckeye;1527581 wrote:So if Dan Snyder pleases to name his team "The Washington N*ggers" you think he should be free to do so?
Please explain how being offended grants you the right to change the decisions of a private organization. It doesn't and if it did, I demand the Yankees change their name in exchange for $15 million dollar(this is essentially what the redskins want).LJ;1529231 wrote:Huh?
I never said it granted any rights. Its just my opinion that if the tribes are offended that the Redskins should change their namesleeper;1529356 wrote:Please explain how being offended grants you the right to change the decisions of a private organization. It doesn't and if it did, I demand the Yankees change their name in exchange for $15 million dollar(this is essentially what the redskins want).
What about if someone is offended by the murder of innocent babies via abortion? Should this be basis for banning abortion? I'm curious to your thoughts of why an offended group should dictate what happens with a privately run organization.LJ;1529361 wrote:I never said it granted any rights. Its just my opinion that if the tribes are offended that the Redskins should change their name
I never said that the government should come in and force them to do any such thing.
Why would you ask me that question when I said that the government shouldn't get involved?sleeper;1529367 wrote:What about if someone is offended by the murder of innocent babies via abortion? Should this be basis for banning abortion? I'm curious to your thoughts of why an offended group should dictate what happens with a privately run organization.
Interesting that you dodge the question again. This "debate" is OVER.LJ;1529372 wrote:Why would you ask me that question when I said that the government shouldn't get involved?
sleeper;1529384 wrote:Interesting that you dodge the question again. This "debate" is OVER.
im a white male and it doesnt offend me, so no I wouldn't want them to change their name. no govt entity should force them to either.sleeper;1529387 wrote:Actually let me rephrase, if it is your opinion that because some groups are offended that the Redskins should change their name, would you also support the Cowboys changing their name because it offends white people? I'm certainly not a gun toting, horse riding, slackjawed idiot and I don't want a sports team in MY country depicting me that way.
If this were the case, then slavery would still be around.LJ;1529226 wrote:I am a middle class white male with no native american ties. Not my place to determine if it's offensive or not. I'm sick of middle class white males getting all uppity about shit that doesn't concern them. If the tribes find it offensive, change it. If they don't, leave it alone.
Gblock;1529211 wrote:I have found this to be true as well...in recent years i have moved more towards american indian as opposed to native american as my understanding has grown.
ummmm. no. just fucking no. not even comparable.OSH;1529442 wrote:If this were the case, then slavery would still be around.
Dodge again. LOL @ LJ. Such a fucking idiot.LJ;1529411 wrote:I didnt dodge shit.
But I am a white male and I am offended so please support my position like you do for the redskins. Do you need a shovel for the hole you are digging yourself? LOLLJ;1529413 wrote:im a white male and it doesnt offend me, so no I wouldn't want them to change their name. no govt entity should force them to either.
Why do I have to support your position? You are taking my opinion and trying to spin it. I'm not saying that ANY change has to happen or ANY change forced. I'm saying that I agree if the Indian tribes are offended that I, personally, believe they should change it. I have no opinion on whether or not Redskin is offensive. I do have an opinion that Cowboy is not offensive, therefore I do not support a change.sleeper;1529462 wrote:But I am a white male and I am offended so please support my position like you do for the redskins. Do you need a shovel for the hole you are digging yourself? LOL
I get it. So you are willing to take a positive position when it is a group outside of the group you are in. Interesting, well as a 20 something male, Cowboys is deeply offensive to my generation. You do not KNOW the pain that this derogatory image has caused me and my peers. I can't believe you would even suggest that allowing them to keep that name is acceptable.LJ;1529469 wrote:Why do I have to support your position? You are taking my opinion and trying to spin it. I'm not saying that ANY change has to happen or ANY change forced. I'm saying that I agree if the Indian tribes are offended that I, personally, believe they should change it. I have no opinion on whether or not Redskin is offensive. I do have an opinion that Cowboy is not offensive, therefore I do not support a change.
What is he dodging? He has answered your question. Calling him a fucking idiot isn't going to enhance the discussion.sleeper;1529461 wrote:Dodge again. LOL @ LJ. Such a fucking idiot.
Because he didn't answer the question. Do you not see the glaring logic fail that only a fucking idiot would make? I normally don't use that language but in this case it is the only appropriate word. Basically, LJ thinks that because a group he's not a part of thinks its offensive then it should be changed. I propose the exact same thing regarding the name Cowboy and all of a sudden LJ says it shouldn't be changed.justincredible;1529476 wrote:What is he dodging? He has answered your question. Calling him a fucking idiot isn't going to enhance the discussion.
A positive position? No, I just defer to their judgment because they know better than I do.sleeper;1529473 wrote:I get it. So you are willing to take a positive position when it is a group outside of the group you are in. Interesting, well as a 20 something male, Cowboys is deeply offensive to my generation. You do not KNOW the pain that this derogatory image has caused me and my peers. I can't believe you would even suggest that allowing them to keep that name is acceptable.
Let me know when you are done digging your own grave.
except as a 20 something white male I would be your peer.You do not KNOW the pain that this derogatory image has caused me and my peers
No you aren't. You clearly cannot be if you think the name Cowboy isn't offensive. LJ, until you know the pain that the name has personally caused me, only then can you make such a statement. But if you know anyone in the Cowboys organization, tell them about $5 million dollars makes it all better.LJ;1529480 wrote:A positive position? No, I just defer to their judgment because they know better than I do.
except as a 20 something white male I would be your peer.
You're just being difficult because it's LJ.sleeper;1529478 wrote:Because he didn't answer the question. Do you not see the glaring logic fail that only a fucking idiot would make? I normally don't use that language but in this case it is the only appropriate word. Basically, LJ thinks that because a group he's not a part of thinks its offensive then it should be changed. I propose the exact same thing regarding the name Cowboy and all of a sudden LJ says it shouldn't be changed.
I mean come on.. LOL