1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Double Down, Oct 5, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I still don't care what you think.
     
  2. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    In a judicial system dominated by white men.
     
  3. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    So bad at this. So very bad.
     
  4. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    This is you wryly and repeatedly dismissing as idiotic my prediction that the Supreme Court would find that the ACA mandate is a tax.

    So bad at this. So very bad.

     
  5. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]

    And this is a bunny with a pancake on its head. So what?
     
  6. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    A wise Latina would be more easily navigate these epistemological hurdles, right?
     
    Guy_Incognito likes this.
  7. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    You are. You have truly reached YF levels of turning yourself into a rhetorical pretzel on this one.
     
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    OK, then how would you prosecute the cases differently to ensure different results? Would you forego trials completely? Would you lower the reasonable doubt standard?

    That's what I'm asking.
     
  9. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Literally nothing I have said has been inconsistent. You and DW are going to the only clubs in your bag, but it isn’t actually getting anywhere
     
  10. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    I have plenty of clubs in my bag, but you don't really deserve more than one given your approach to this discussion.

    It isn't so much inconsistency as dishonesty. You duck the hard questions that poke holes in your argument while claiming they are silly instead of just dealing with them. Is Dickie going over the top with some of his rhetoric? Of course. That's what he does. But that doesn't mean he's wrong.

    Edit: I changed this post after the like. Not sure if you want still want it on there, Dick. Just sayin'.
     
    Dick Whitman likes this.
  11. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    “Hate speech is violence and should be prohibited.”
    “Hate speech is actually protected under the Constitution.”
    “The Constitution doesn’t protect violence.”
    “It may not protect violence, but it certainly protects hate speech... here are governing precedents A, B, C, ... X, Y and Z. How are you going to navigate these protections while prohibiting the speech of which you disapprove?”
    “I’m comfortable trusting those institutions we have.”
    “You mean like the Supreme Court, the one that’s long treated hate speech as Constitutionally protected?”
    “But hate speech is violence and should be prohibited.”
     
    Dick Whitman likes this.
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Nah, I'm good. You're right, and there's a method/point to it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page