[
The NBA nor the court system can not enforce a contract that violates law. I will bet money they can not legally force him to sell his property for exercising free speech. Further, I can not imagine that tape being admissible in a court of law. People cant just come take your property for saying something stupid...not in the US anyways. The NBA's legal argument is ambiguous at best.
He said those words on a private conversation that was being illegally recorded. Its not possible to make a legal argument that he willfully hurt the NBA. He did not record or release or authorize those words he said to be made public.
I do not think some of you understand the implications this has on privacy and speech.
Quote for me the law you believe this contract violates.
Also see: Milkman, Katherine L. and Akinola, Modupe and Chugh, Dolly, What Happens Before? A Field Experiment Exploring How Pay and Representation Differentially Shape Bias on the Pathway into Organizations (April 23, 2014). (Link)
Consider yourself educated on some effects of sexism and racism in academia. Apparently privilege does exist.
is this the part where I can say **** off and take your computer?
You could tell me to, but as I'm attempting to play by your rules and educate you on relevant topics, you doing so may make your previous argument seem insincere~
Also, where have I said anything about taking computers? Your previous posts on this line of argument seem to unnecessarily associate disagreement with theft~
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
There is a pretty big difference between having a contract where you must violate a law and a contract where you agree not to do something you otherwise are legally allowed to do. One of these things is illegal. The other? Nope.
Then again, I don't know why the hell free speech matters in a deal that doesn't involve the government, but what do I know?
There is a pretty big difference between having a contract where you must violate a law and a contract where you agree not to do something you otherwise are legally allowed to do. One of these things is illegal. The other? Nope.
Where in the contract does it say its wrong for Sterling to voice his opinion in the privacy of his own home?
[
The NBA nor the court system can not enforce a contract that violates law. I will bet money they can not legally force him to sell his property for exercising free speech. Further, I can not imagine that tape being admissible in a court of law. People cant just come take your property for saying something stupid...not in the US anyways. The NBA's legal argument is ambiguous at best.
He said those words on a private conversation that was being illegally recorded. Its not possible to make a legal argument that he willfully hurt the NBA. He did not record or release or authorize those words he said to be made public.
I do not think some of you understand the implications this has on privacy and speech.
Quote for me the law you believe this contract violates.
The contract does not violate any law, yet. A court or the NBA enforcing that contract on the grounds of him exercising freedom of speech in the privacy of his home with zero intent for those comments to be made public would violate his civil rights. Saying you will not willfully bring harm to the NBA is not a waiver nor does it negate his rights to his property. There is nothing in the NBA bylaws that would suggest they have the right to take his property on the merits they have presented.
I would like to see precedence concerning an individual being forced to sell his or her property on the grounds he talked about a non-criminal topic in the privacy of his or her home.
Also see: Milkman, Katherine L. and Akinola, Modupe and Chugh, Dolly, What Happens Before? A Field Experiment Exploring How Pay and Representation Differentially Shape Bias on the Pathway into Organizations (April 23, 2014). (Link)
Consider yourself educated on some effects of sexism and racism in academia. Apparently privilege does exist.
is this the part where I can say **** off and take your computer?
You could tell me to, but as I'm attempting to play by your rules and educate you on relevant topics, you doing so may make your previous argument seem insincere~
Also, where have I said anything about taking computers? Your previous posts on this line of argument seem to unnecessarily associate disagreement with theft~
IF you want a discussion on privilege read the voluminous number of post I've made in this sub-forum on that topic and create a new thread. I'll be happy to show you just how indisputably racist your privilege ideology is. Here is a prelude to what I'll be arguing:
Quote from dictionary »
rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
The belief that all members of the white race possess a privilege (is a characteristic) specific to being white, especially to distinguish it as superior to minorities.
Quote from another dictionary »
rac·ism noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
So you say I'm advantaged or privileged or better off because I'm white....
1) I'm also white, as are presumably most of MTG Salvation's users. Shock horror, MTG nerds tend to be white males between 16-30 years of age. I'll go out on a limb and say that most of Salvation's users probably come from the USA, due to the history of Magic's printing.
2) Congratulations, you've realized that a worryingly large section of academia is racist and/or sexist, according to the dictionary definition you yourself posted, which I would agree with.
2a) Except you've not somehow? Are you arguing that observed racism can't be called racist because pointing out institutional racism is in itself racist? I can't be following your argument correctly.
3) Seriously am I missing anything?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Do you think that an owner of a team being racist makes the NBA look bad to the public if they choose not to punish him?
Also, even if something is illegally obtained, it is admissible as evidence in a court case as long as a government official or someone acting on behalf of the government was not the one to illegally obtain it.
Do you think that an owner of a team being racist makes the NBA look bad to the public if they choose not to punish him?
Also, even if something is illegally obtained, it is admissible as evidence in a court case as long as a government official or someone acting on behalf of the government was not the one to illegally obtain it.
Have you even read the the NBA's bylaws....
Article 13(d) of the NBA constitution, which states that an owner can lose the team if he fails or refuses to "fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversly."
How is having a private discussion not fulfilling a contractual obligation?
Below is the contract he purportedly violated:
Quote from NBA by laws »
Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association."
I'm not sure how a private discussion about race is willfully violating provisions of the constitution and by laws. He's willfully racist. He did not willfully violate his contract with the NBA by having a private discussion about race.
It astonishes me how many people support his property being forcibly taken due to the contents of a PRIVATE discussion.
1) I'm also white, as are presumably most of MTG Salvation's users. Shock horror, MTG nerds tend to be white males between 16-30 years of age. I'll go out on a limb and say that most of Salvation's users probably come from the USA, due to the history of Magic's printing.
2) Congratulations, you've realized that a worryingly large section of academia is racist and/or sexist, according to the dictionary definition you yourself posted, which I would agree with.
2a) Except you've not somehow? Are you arguing that observed racism can't be called racist because pointing out institutional racism is in itself racist? I can't be following your argument correctly.
3) Seriously am I missing anything?
Please start another thread if you insist on talking about privilege...it is one of my favorite topics to debate but this topic has nothing to do with this purported "privilege" you seem to want to discuss so bad. You can come up with all the excuses you want to characterize an entire race ....its still racist.
The NBA could then rely on Article 13(d) of its constitution, which states that owners who “fail or refuse to fulfill its) contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely” may be terminated by a majority three-fourths vote.
1) I'm also white, as are presumably most of MTG Salvation's users. Shock horror, MTG nerds tend to be white males between 16-30 years of age. I'll go out on a limb and say that most of Salvation's users probably come from the USA, due to the history of Magic's printing.
2) Congratulations, you've realized that a worryingly large section of academia is racist and/or sexist, according to the dictionary definition you yourself posted, which I would agree with.
2a) Except you've not somehow? Are you arguing that observed racism can't be called racist because pointing out institutional racism is in itself racist? I can't be following your argument correctly.
3) Seriously am I missing anything?
Re: 2a,
Sadly I believe you are, in fact, following said argument correctly. Billy once spent a period of 6 weeks trying to argue as much. It's where he got his first suspension too, for repeated stonewalling/misrepresentation, etc.
Its an argument rooted in bitter right wing ideologues that don't have any other better argument when racism happens than to try for a false equivalence. Since then, its spread out and now we hear the argument 10th hand from this guy.
Let's leave users' past infraction histories out of the conversation. Troll warning. - Blinking Spirit
How is thinking of me as privileged based on my skin color "observed racism"? Especially when you've yet study my achievements and failures? There is no observation going on. You base your characterization of my "privilege" on my race and what some other people did to some other people. Talk about faulty logic. You guys pass judgment on people based on skin color.
EDIT:
BTW, I was suspended for not answering a question to which I refuted the premise and explained as much. I will not answer a question to which I refute the premise. Get your fact's straight.
Billy once spent a period of 6 weeks trying to argue as much. It's where he got his first suspension too, for repeated stonewalling/misrepresentation, etc.
Darn. I wonder if that's the topic that gave me my "plus five days rule". If so, the debate forum has come full circle, and I am out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
The NBA could then rely on Article 13(d) of its constitution, which states that owners who “fail or refuse to fulfill its) contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely” may be terminated by a majority three-fourths vote.
What contractual obligation did he violate? Where does he have a contractual obligation to not talk privately about race in the privacy of his home? Please do not stonewall.
What contractual obligation did he violate? Where does he have a contractual obligation to not talk privately about race in the privacy of his home? Please do not stonewall.
Note that the objection here is whether the contract actually covers Sterling's situation. The author seems quite happy with the concept that the NBA could force Sterling to sell if he did indeed violate the terms.
What contractual obligation did he violate? Where does he have a contractual obligation to not talk privately about race in the privacy of his home? Please do not stonewall.
Note that the objection here is whether the contract actually covers Sterling's situation. The author seems quite happy with the concept that the NBA could force Sterling to sell if he did indeed violate the terms.
Show me an example of a contract where a person will be forced to sell their property due discussing race in a private and personal discussion.
Seriously, dude, its the ethics/morals/etc clause. You want an example?
It got out that the dude is spouting racism, however that got out, and now it becomes a matter of whether that was in violation of his contract. That the conversation was personal and private doesn't matter here as the government wasn't the one gathering the info, but his GF.
If you sign a contract containing a stipulation that you must dance a merry jig after you spill applesauce then your options when you spill the applesauce your options are to either dance a merry jig or to be in violation of your contract with whatever penalties are prescribed.
Either way, stop whitewashing this as "discussing race" when the comments were he told her not to associate with black people. From here we see a discussion, but is this conversation "about" race in some abstract sense or is he just telling her not to bring black people to the game and then, somehow, acting as though he is the one supporting them when its a symbiotic relationship.
Quote from link »
V: I don't understand, I don't see your views. I wasn't raised the way you were raised.
DS: Well then, if you don't feel—don't come to my games. Don't bring black people, and don't come.
V: Do you know that you have a whole team that's black, that plays for you?
DS: You just, do I know? I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? Do I know that I have—Who makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners, that created the league?
Then there s a weird conversation about whether one of her instagram friends is mixed or something... and the offensiveness continues in his other businesses but in those businesses there isn't an ethics clause that can be levied against him.
Every single time you try to frame this as "discussing race in a private and personal discussion. " all I, or anyone, has to do is repost the above where an old, racist slumlord was caught on tape being crazy racist and people finally had enough. His comments are abhorrent. Particularly from an earlier sexual harrassment lawsuit
Billy once spent a period of 6 weeks trying to argue as much. It's where he got his first suspension too, for repeated stonewalling/misrepresentation, etc.
Darn. I wonder if that's the topic that gave me my "plus five days rule". If so, the debate forum has come full circle, and I am out.
You just can't reach some people. It might be where you got the 5 days plus rule, I wouldn't know. I just know that at a certain point theres no helping someone who is so sure of their correctness that god himself couldn't change their minds.
They can ban his team from playing in the NBA, they can not take the team. McDonald's can prevent you from using their logo but they cant take your employees, your restaurant or your ownership of the business. they can only take the name and any sort of support they provide. Get your facts straight before you preach to me how "frustrating I am". They can destroy his business but they cant take his personal property because he said something offensive. If you believe they should, I want your house because you offend me.
You might want to actually read franchise agreements - I'm studying many right now since I'm deciding to go the "open a business" direction with getting back to being productive - and two of the franchise agreements I've viewed so far have a forfeiture clause if you make gross breaches of company standards.
I should stop helping old people operate their cell phone since it takes me three times as long and they are resistant to being educated. I should tell them to **** off and we should take their cell phones.
You could the smartest person in the world and be ignorant to certain things. I don't give a damn about his redemption. I give a damn how illogical and destructive we as a society have become towards ignorance. In the context of racism, this situation with Sterling accomplished nothing good.
If an old man threw his cell phone against a wall because it didn't work, would you buy him a third one?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
They can ban his team from playing in the NBA, they can not take the team. McDonald's can prevent you from using their logo but they cant take your employees, your restaurant or your ownership of the business. they can only take the name and any sort of support they provide. Get your facts straight before you preach to me how "frustrating I am". They can destroy his business but they cant take his personal property because he said something offensive. If you believe they should, I want your house because you offend me.
Except we don't have any sort of legal agreement whereby I have to conduct myself in a manner that reflects well on you. You're making a whole lot of bad comparisons.
In article 13 of the franchising agreement, it would have to be proved by the NBA, but by alienating sponsors and the fan base, he could be 'failing to meet his contractual obligations'. Hopefully the NBA actually has a case for this, which remains to be seen.
More interesting discussion here is whether or not legal agreements that stop people from expressing their honest opinions are morally just, and where their limits go. As far as I understand, you would be expected to lie in order to maintain the agreement. Say, if someone asked him about his views regarding people of colour on television, he'd have to actively lie. And I agree with Billydaman on the fact that forcing people to lie isn't going to do anything to actually reduce racism. Actively punishing racists really doesn't do much either.
I don't think there's much dispute whether or not the guys contract can be terminated. It almost certainly can, if it's possible to terminate contracts with players on the basis of them drinking alcohol, even in private. I just don't think such contracts are a sensible thing to enforce. And in fact, can be seen as a discrimination towards certain genetic traits on their own. Substance use and abuse are genetic, so using them as a standard isn't really a nonbiased way to look at things, and the correct meritocratic way would be simply looking at the performance of the athlete.
Either way, I'm certainly going off on a tangent here. The bottom line is that he signed a silly contract and it can be terminated, whether or not he divulged his opinions in private or public does not matter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I wonder what part of the Clippers does he actually own...
For example when someone franchises a McDonalds they are basically buying naming rights and buying into a distribution chain. McDonalds can take that part away from the owner but they can't take the actual restaurant.
Does this guy own the Clippers name? Does he own the contracts with the players? I think the most important details here are which parts he actually owns and what of the Clippers does the NBA own. I don't think it would take much of an argument to say the NBA can kick the team out of the NBA itself... the question is if that's all they do would they have to make a new team with a new name?
What contractual obligation did he violate? Where does he have a contractual obligation to not talk privately about race in the privacy of his home? Please do not stonewall.
Note that the objection here is whether the contract actually covers Sterling's situation. The author seems quite happy with the concept that the NBA could force Sterling to sell if he did indeed violate the terms.
Show me an example of a contract where a person will be forced to sell their property due discussing race in a private and personal discussion.
That time that black woman ended up owning the Klan?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Quote for me the law you believe this contract violates.
Also, where have I said anything about taking computers? Your previous posts on this line of argument seem to unnecessarily associate disagreement with theft~
Art is life itself.
Then again, I don't know why the hell free speech matters in a deal that doesn't involve the government, but what do I know?
Where in the contract does it say its wrong for Sterling to voice his opinion in the privacy of his own home?
Who will enforce the contract? What happens if he does not sell?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The contract does not violate any law, yet. A court or the NBA enforcing that contract on the grounds of him exercising freedom of speech in the privacy of his home with zero intent for those comments to be made public would violate his civil rights. Saying you will not willfully bring harm to the NBA is not a waiver nor does it negate his rights to his property. There is nothing in the NBA bylaws that would suggest they have the right to take his property on the merits they have presented.
I would like to see precedence concerning an individual being forced to sell his or her property on the grounds he talked about a non-criminal topic in the privacy of his or her home.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
IF you want a discussion on privilege read the voluminous number of post I've made in this sub-forum on that topic and create a new thread. I'll be happy to show you just how indisputably racist your privilege ideology is. Here is a prelude to what I'll be arguing:
The belief that all members of the white race possess a privilege (is a characteristic) specific to being white, especially to distinguish it as superior to minorities.
So you say I'm advantaged or privileged or better off because I'm white....
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
2) Congratulations, you've realized that a worryingly large section of academia is racist and/or sexist, according to the dictionary definition you yourself posted, which I would agree with.
2a) Except you've not somehow? Are you arguing that observed racism can't be called racist because pointing out institutional racism is in itself racist? I can't be following your argument correctly.
3) Seriously am I missing anything?
Art is life itself.
A lot of contracts have a morals clause, basically, you get punished for doing something that paints the other side of the contract in a bad light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals_clause
And it seems he may have signed a morals clause.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/07/us/clippers-donald-sterling/
Do you think that an owner of a team being racist makes the NBA look bad to the public if they choose not to punish him?
Also, even if something is illegally obtained, it is admissible as evidence in a court case as long as a government official or someone acting on behalf of the government was not the one to illegally obtain it.
Have you even read the the NBA's bylaws....
How is having a private discussion not fulfilling a contractual obligation?
Below is the contract he purportedly violated:
I'm not sure how a private discussion about race is willfully violating provisions of the constitution and by laws. He's willfully racist. He did not willfully violate his contract with the NBA by having a private discussion about race.
It astonishes me how many people support his property being forcibly taken due to the contents of a PRIVATE discussion.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Please start another thread if you insist on talking about privilege...it is one of my favorite topics to debate but this topic has nothing to do with this purported "privilege" you seem to want to discuss so bad. You can come up with all the excuses you want to characterize an entire race ....its still racist.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
He violated the ethics clause of his contract. Where it matters is irrelevant.
The same people that provide the ultimate force to all contracts? What happens if he doesn't? That's not really an option. He signed the paperwork and per 3 seconds of googling, http://www.insidesocal.com/clippers/2014/05/07/report-donald-sterling-signed-moral-ethics-contract-with-nba/
Re: 2a,
Sadly I believe you are, in fact, following said argument correctly. Billy once spent a period of 6 weeks trying to argue as much. It's where he got his first suspension too, for repeated stonewalling/misrepresentation, etc.
Its an argument rooted in bitter right wing ideologues that don't have any other better argument when racism happens than to try for a false equivalence. Since then, its spread out and now we hear the argument 10th hand from this guy.
Let's leave users' past infraction histories out of the conversation. Troll warning. - Blinking Spirit
EDIT:
BTW, I was suspended for not answering a question to which I refuted the premise and explained as much. I will not answer a question to which I refute the premise. Get your fact's straight.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Art is life itself.
What contractual obligation did he violate? Where does he have a contractual obligation to not talk privately about race in the privacy of his home? Please do not stonewall.
Google is your friend:
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/nba-lacks-the-authority-to-force-donald-sterling-to-sell-the-clippers-050114
That is a lawyer who wrote that.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Note that the objection here is whether the contract actually covers Sterling's situation. The author seems quite happy with the concept that the NBA could force Sterling to sell if he did indeed violate the terms.
Show me an example of a contract where a person will be forced to sell their property due discussing race in a private and personal discussion.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
It got out that the dude is spouting racism, however that got out, and now it becomes a matter of whether that was in violation of his contract. That the conversation was personal and private doesn't matter here as the government wasn't the one gathering the info, but his GF.
If you sign a contract containing a stipulation that you must dance a merry jig after you spill applesauce then your options when you spill the applesauce your options are to either dance a merry jig or to be in violation of your contract with whatever penalties are prescribed.
Either way, stop whitewashing this as "discussing race" when the comments were he told her not to associate with black people. From here we see a discussion, but is this conversation "about" race in some abstract sense or is he just telling her not to bring black people to the game and then, somehow, acting as though he is the one supporting them when its a symbiotic relationship.
Then there s a weird conversation about whether one of her instagram friends is mixed or something... and the offensiveness continues in his other businesses but in those businesses there isn't an ethics clause that can be levied against him.
Every single time you try to frame this as "discussing race in a private and personal discussion. " all I, or anyone, has to do is repost the above where an old, racist slumlord was caught on tape being crazy racist and people finally had enough. His comments are abhorrent. Particularly from an earlier sexual harrassment lawsuit
You just can't reach some people. It might be where you got the 5 days plus rule, I wouldn't know. I just know that at a certain point theres no helping someone who is so sure of their correctness that god himself couldn't change their minds.
You might want to actually read franchise agreements - I'm studying many right now since I'm deciding to go the "open a business" direction with getting back to being productive - and two of the franchise agreements I've viewed so far have a forfeiture clause if you make gross breaches of company standards.
If an old man threw his cell phone against a wall because it didn't work, would you buy him a third one?
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Except we don't have any sort of legal agreement whereby I have to conduct myself in a manner that reflects well on you. You're making a whole lot of bad comparisons.
In article 13 of the franchising agreement, it would have to be proved by the NBA, but by alienating sponsors and the fan base, he could be 'failing to meet his contractual obligations'. Hopefully the NBA actually has a case for this, which remains to be seen.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I don't think there's much dispute whether or not the guys contract can be terminated. It almost certainly can, if it's possible to terminate contracts with players on the basis of them drinking alcohol, even in private. I just don't think such contracts are a sensible thing to enforce. And in fact, can be seen as a discrimination towards certain genetic traits on their own. Substance use and abuse are genetic, so using them as a standard isn't really a nonbiased way to look at things, and the correct meritocratic way would be simply looking at the performance of the athlete.
Either way, I'm certainly going off on a tangent here. The bottom line is that he signed a silly contract and it can be terminated, whether or not he divulged his opinions in private or public does not matter.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
For example when someone franchises a McDonalds they are basically buying naming rights and buying into a distribution chain. McDonalds can take that part away from the owner but they can't take the actual restaurant.
Does this guy own the Clippers name? Does he own the contracts with the players? I think the most important details here are which parts he actually owns and what of the Clippers does the NBA own. I don't think it would take much of an argument to say the NBA can kick the team out of the NBA itself... the question is if that's all they do would they have to make a new team with a new name?
That time that black woman ended up owning the Klan?