genuineoriginal
New member
So, how do you propose we remove the 10%?
Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
Why would we? That is, if you're going to try to infer a clever modest proposal you're going to have to apply the concepts. I don't think you can here, but go ahead and try.
The majority has said they either a) didn't mean to offend or b) meant to compliment Native Americans.
The minority has made no such claim, only that they're offended.
To the majority: if you don't mean to offend, stop doing it.
genuineoriginal
New member
It was your suggestion to remove the offense.
The 10% ARE the offense.
genuineoriginal
New member
You are shifting goal posts.
The majority of the American Indians polled said they are not offended by the name.
The minority said they are offended.
If only it were that easy
Rather, I've held from the outset a fairly clear response to those who say they either didn't mean to offend or in fact meant to praise. When you understand that you're offending one in ten it's time to find another way to praise or a different approach if you mean not to offer insult.
Something I acknowledged at the start. It isn't about people who aren't offended.
Right again.
No, what I've said is that if you're going to claim not to have meant to offer offense or even to have praised then you failed one time in ten and you should change your method.
They aren't calling anyone a historically demeaning name. Like suggesting that the problem in the South during the pre Civil Rights movement was blacks with poor attitudes.
Careful or I'll call you a poodle head and you'll have to take that serious matter up before the mods.
wouldn't you love to pump town full of truth serum and make him post?
:think:
:think:
town said:
genuineoriginal said:
town said:
genuineoriginal said:
town said:
genuineoriginal
New member
It should be, since they are the overwhelming majority.
Not at all.
80% of people polled disapprove of Congress and Congress is not changing their methods because of it.
i wonder how many people disapprove of bammy?
genuineoriginal
New member
Don't forget that the poll only counted people that claimed to be American Indian or Native American.
If you counted all the rest, I am sure the success rate is even higher.
With what issue? The only thing you can say about them is that they aren't offended by the term--not that they're invested in it or that they would suffer any sort of injury without it.
...if you're going to claim not to have meant to offer offense or even to have praised then you failed one time in ten and you should change your method.
Only if you don't care about offending and/or were never concerned by it and/or didn't mean to praise them. But then you wouldn't be in the group I'm addressing with my argument.
They disapprove of how they're doing their job. And if most people object to the job done by Congress but then vote the same rascals or mostly the same rascals back in they have the same credibility/rationality/inconsistency problem those not addressing my argument who held the positions I noted do.
genuineoriginal
New member
You got your numbers wrong.
The real number is .17 percent of the population unjustly feels offended by someone using the word "Redskins" as the name of a football team, as opposed to using the word as any kind of slur.
Those people that unjustly feel offended by the name of the football team are in the wrong.
You are moving the goal posts again.
The question is whether the claims of the 5 people who claim to represent the .17 percent who unjustly feel offended by the name of a football team can use their own stupidity to force the football team to change the name.
Unfortunately, it appears that the government has taken stupidity to a whole new level in its quest to become the Big Brother from 1984 by making the name of the football team into a thoughtcrime.
No, I don't. You're just looking for the next way to make this about something it isn't. You were fine with them until you found your newest way to move the discussion further from the point.
Heck, you want a smaller number just ask a handful of guys you know.
Or say, "100% of me." Man, that would be something.You declare them unjustly offended. First, unjust in what way and who decided it? It isn't wrong or unreasonable to object to a term with historically negative connotations being used to lump sum your people as noble savages, at best. That's why the Court agreed, upon consideration of the evidence.
You've never demonstrated me doing it the first time. You don't here. You just move on to trying new numbers and the same shtick.
No, I'm actually noting that ten percent of those who are being addressed are offended by the manner of the address and that the courts and other authority find the offense taken reasonable.
And, beyond that, I'm saying to those who never meant to offend, now you know. So stop doing that. You obviously don't care. So my argument isn't meant to reach you.
Except they did nothing of the sort. All they did was remove the singular right to use and profit by the offense.
genuineoriginal
New member
They have the right to object, but their objection is unreasonable and should have been thrown out of court as a frivolous lawsuit.
I see you still want to use the wrong numbers, and am assuming that it is based on you wanting to address the class of people in a class action lawsuit.
The proposed class must consist of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries. Typically these cases result from an action on the part of a business or a particular product defect or policy that applied to all proposed class members in a typical manner. |
By your insistance that only 10% of the proposed class claim to have suffered injury, you are disqualifying the class as a valid class.
As to the injury, in order to be injured by the use of the name "Redskin," the plaintiffs must identify their proposed class as comprised of all the redskins and show that the actual use of the name redskin for a football team is causing actual injury to all the members of their proposed class.
They have failed to do either.
Then they did not suffer any injury by their pretended offense.
try telling that to the red mesa redskins :chuckle:
wot a tard!
:mock:town the tard
So if the other 90% are in favor of it, then they should keep the name, right? Or if not, then what is the breakdown on the numbers when we keep a name and when we don't?
And are the only ones that can be an authority on point. There is no such thing as suing to ignore the offended.
I'm offended that the Yankees are called such. So they should be expected to stop using that name, no?if you don't desire to offend anyone and you understand yourself to be offending then stop doing that.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Was Barack Obama Channeling Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams Here?
Was Barack Obama Channeling Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams Here?
Was Barack Obama Channeling Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams Here?
| Was Barack Obama Channeling Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams Here? | |
We don't know if most of that 90% only tolerate it or are indifferent to it, let alone how many support it, but no, once again, my argument/advance has never been about anything but:
1) People claiming to not have meant offense or wanting, instead, to praise Native Americans with the use and 2) the then unintended insult being delivered to one in ten of the people in question and 3) what the response should be by those offering the unintended offense.
Or, if you don't mean to do a thing and find yourself doing it, stop doing that.