YOU'RE FIRED!

[Sommerswerd]

Do you acknowledge free speech as a constitutional right?

I have already acknowledged the existence of Constitutional rights, including Freedom of Speech. What I keep telling you over and over is that we choose who we want to defend. I choose to defend the NFL players, not the Klan.

Okay, but thats a rather weak position from which to complain about other people. You accused them of hypocrisy for failing to support the players with the same enthusiasm as the Charlottesville protesters, but where were you? Eff'ing the ayholes.

You're once again strawmanning my actual position and trying to get me to defend a position that I didn't take. Accusing me of hypocrisy entirely misses the point. I have told you numerous times... "Defend the Free Speech of whoever you like." And I have explained to you numerous times what I mean by this. Again, I have no problem with people defending the people/causes they like and declining to defend the people/causes they do not like. Indeed, it has always been my position that this is in-fact what just about everyone, (myself included) does, and these threads are no exception.

My point...which I have stated repeatedly... is that this is all that you are doing and you (the royal you) are using "Free Speech" as an excuse to simply defend the people that you want to defend... for political and personal reasons, that have nothing to do with any commitment to Freedom Speech. The hypocrisy isn't the point of my charge. The point of my charge is the dishonesty. I point to the hypocrisy simply because the hypocrisy exposes the dishonesty. If folks really cared about Free Speech there would be no hypocrisy, they would be consistent, but they aren't... they are hypocritical, because they were dishonest (possibly with themselves) about their reasons for defending the Klan. If they had been honest and simply admitted, for example, that they are defending the Klan because of their conservative political alignment/ideology, it would be easy for them to explain their opposition to the NFL players based on that same alignment. But they are trying to be coy/being dishonest (again, maybe to themselves) about their alignment and the role that it plays in the positions they take.

I understand conservatives defending the Klan as they are political allies of the Klan. So... again... If you like the Klan or you'd like to defend the Klan... you do you. There will always be people like you, who like defending the Klan, white supremacists and so on, so they will never be lacking in defenders. I, on the other hand will be defending the NFL players, because I like them, and I support their cause. You can try to call that hypocrisy, but really it isn't, because I never made the phoney claim to be defending the NFL players on Freedom of Speech grounds. I am honest about the fact that I support the players and their cause and I don't support the Klan... so I don't have to worry about hypocrisy.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You then go on to bring up Kaepernick as an example of someone who was fired for protesting.

I did no such thing. You are strawmanning.

And since you are always so eager to demonstrate something when you know you are right, the fact that you haven't done so yet

C'mon man... You've been serving up a lot of baloney here, and I feel like I have done a decent job of giving thorough attention to all the baloney you've been serving up, even going back and trying to catch baloney that I've missed. I've basically debunked every word coming out of your mouth, line-by-line but seriously, I have a job, and family... I can't spend all day slicing up your baloney. I have to do other things sometimes. Plus the other thing is that you keep getting on this merry-go-round where your baloney gets debunked, and you just refuse to acknowledge it and move on to new baloney... instead you just act as if that baloney that just got fried and eaten with eggs is actually still on the plate... It's not man, its gone, you're asking me to refry baloney that's already been sliced up and disposed of.

He is on record as saying he doesn't believe white supremacists should have their rights defended.

You lyin' on me now man? Is that what its come to? That is some straight up fake news buddy. I said no such thing. And its ironic because you get soooooo mad at people when they do this to you (the "if you disagree with me I'll make up stuff about you" thing you always accuse people of).

If there's one thing both lawyers and soldiers have in common, it is the expectation that they be apolitical when carrying out their duties.

JR and MH and others have already debunked your preposterous "professionalism" argument so I won't repeat, but since you brought up the comparison I have a thought exercise for you. If I said "If you aren't willing to slaughter a village full of innocent civilians on the orders of your superior officer then youre unfit to be a soldier.", You'd say... well a bunch of stuff... but among those would be "Sommer, you aren't a soldier so you have no clue what you're talking about and you're in no position as an ordinary civilian, to tell a soldier what the parameters of his duty as a soldier are. Soldiers don't cease to be guided by a moral compass just because they are soldiers."

Thought exercise over.

 

[Berzerker]

The bolded is a strawman. I never said any such thing.

When it came to the Klan's free speech you said eff the ayholes, but you're acknowledging their right to free speech?

You're asking me questions about the Klan and each time I am responding to you with my unambiguous position... Eff.The.Klan. "Does the Klan this? Does the Klan that?" Eff those guys. I don't care about them. Eff them. That's my answer.

Was that your response when I asked if the Klan had other rights? Your first response was unambiguous - eff the Klan's free speech. But now you seem to be saying they do have the right to free speech - is that defending them?

Let me give you an analogy.

Oh God, nooo...

I don't like Raisin Bran cereal (obviously). Eff Rasin Bran, I don't like it. If you ask me "Should Raisin Bran be sold in Walmart or not?" My answer is "I don't care, eff Rasin Bran."

Here's your response when Commodore said defending free speech doesn't me endorsing the message:

Yes, I've heard this argument made many times. It's baloney and I've explained why. You can keep repeating it and I'll keep debunking it. Again... Its not about defending their cause... Its about defending them. If you're defending the Klan's rights, you're defending the Klan. You're defending them. The issue is not whether or not you're defending the Klan... you are defending them. The only relevant issue is why... Why are you defending the Klan?

Your unambiguous answer is you dont care if the Klan's free speech is defended or not? You took quite an exception when others defended their free speech, going so far as to suggest hypocritical (or worse) motives. I'd think the analogy would be "I hate the Klan and wont defend their rights". But you do acknowledge these rights, so how are you not defending the Klan? You're admitting they have rights, the same ones we're defending while you eff the ayholes. One more thing, the protesters in Virginia were not 'the Klan' so your list of ayholes includes a bunch of people - were you defending Milo's free speech? Was he on your list?

No I didn't. That is another strawman introduced by you. In this discussion, I said "job" not "pay" or "$$$", those are two distinct concepts. You slid "$$$" in because you were trying to use that to make some kind of a point, once again, strawmanning my position and demanding that I defend the strawman position you projected onto me. Strawman after strawman.

I assumed you're paid for your job - why is that a straw man? If you weren't paid would you be doing that job? "Some kind of point"? And you're lecturing me about projection?

Nobody is rounding up the Klan into concentration camps, and trying to project a position onto me for your absurd hypothetical is just another form of strawmanning. You are trying to insist that I must either support or oppose your absurd hypothetical. I reject that premise out of hand. Once again, I don't defend the Klan. Eff those guys.

If the Klan was being rounded up and exterminated, what would you be doing? Helping, hindering, or watching? Yeah, they're not being rounded up... So you dont have to choose, but what if they were being rounded up? Their free speech is under attack and you're effing the ayholes. Does that mean you're helping cuz you sure aint hindering or watching.

 

[Commodore]

If I said "If you aren't willing to slaughter a village full of innocent civilians on the orders of your superior officer then youre unfit to be a soldier."

Well, if you said that you would be demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of the military profession. Soldiers are only obligated to follow lawful orders and in fact have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. Being ordered to slaughter a village of civilians would be an unlawful order and I, as a soldier, would have a duty to disobey that order. So your analogy there fails at every level. Try again.

EDIT: In other words, a soldier doesn't need their own moral compass because the military provides one for them.

JR and MH and others have already debunked your preposterous "professionalism" argument so I won't repeat,

They haven't debunked anything,and neither have you. All I'm seeing is a couple of unprofessional lawyers trying desperately to justify their unprofessional attitudes.

 

[JollyRoger]

It is unprofessional to take on a client that you are going to be unable to serve for whatever reason. If I am a estate planning lawyer, should I have to take on someone who wants me to represent them in a criminal matter? If upon meeting a potential client, it is obvious they have an unpleasant personality that would make any sort of representation miserable, should I have to take them on as a client? Ethics say I do not have to and in some cases, it would be unethical to take them on. It is a very professional attitude to recognize that it is often the best course of action to tell a potential client that you cannot or will not represent them. Being a klansman is not a protected class, so I could wholesale make it a policy not to represent a klansman and not be violating any professional responsibility standards or discrimination laws.

 

[Commodore]

Being a klansman is not a protected class, so I could wholesale make it a policy not to represent a klansman and not be violating any professional responsibility standards or discrimination laws.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. What if you were the best possible legal representation that klansman could get in a matter wholly unrelated to his politics? You would deny him the best legal representation simply because you can't put your personal politics aside? That sounds pretty unprofessional to me.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well, if you said that you would be demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of the military profession.

Yes that's exactly what I said you'd say, thanks for proving my point... Now all you need to do is take the next step in the thought exercise... Replace the word "soldier" with...

 

[Commodore]

Yes that's exactly what I said you'd say, thanks for proving my point... Now all you need to do is take the next step in the thought exercise... Replace the word "soldier" with...

Except in your analogy you used a situation in which I would actually be violating the professional standards of what it is to be a soldier. There is nothing about putting your personal politics aside and representing a klansman that violates the professional standards of being a lawyer.

So again, your little thought exercise fails on every level, counselor.

 

[Sommerswerd]

When it came to the Klan's free speech you said eff the ayholes, but you're acknowledging their right to free speech?



Was that your response when I asked if the Klan had other rights? Your first response was unambiguous - eff the Klan's free speech. But now you seem to be saying they do have the right to free speech - is that defending them?



Oh God, nooo...



Here's your response when Commodore said defending free speech doesn't me endorsing the message:



Your unambiguous answer is you dont care if the Klan's free speech is defended or not? You took quite an exception when others defended their free speech, going so far as to suggest hypocritical (or worse) motives. I'd think the analogy would be "I hate the Klan and wont defend their rights". But you do acknowledge these rights, so how are you not defending the Klan? You're admitting they have rights, the same ones we're defending while you eff the ayholes. One more thing, the protesters in Virginia were not 'the Klan' so your list of ayholes includes a bunch of people - were you defending Milo's free speech? Was he on your list?



I assumed you're paid for your job - why is that a straw man? If you weren't paid would you be doing that job? "Some kind of point"? And you're lecturing me about projection?



If the Klan was being rounded up and exterminated, what would you be doing? Helping, hindering, or watching? Yeah, they're not being rounded up... So you dont have to choose, but what if they were being rounded up? Their free speech is under attack and you're effing the ayholes. Does that mean you're helping cuz you sure aint hindering or watching.

This whole post is just re-asking questions I've already answered multiple times. Just face it... what youre trying to do isn't working... now you're all over the place... getting more and more disjointed, abstract and off topic, in your quest to prove something that just isnt the case. Youre not even talking about the subject of the thread anymore because youre so focused on your abstract strawman. Your argument is a mess... Just let it go.

The reason folks here are claiming "Free Speech" as a justification for defending Klan, Nazis, White Supremacists, Milo, Trump, etc... instead of just admitting the truth (including to themselves) is because they are afraid of how it makes them look. "Defending Free Speech" makes you (the royal you) feel noble. To quote George Carlin (in a very similar context)... "Makes ya feel noble!" Saying "I'm a conservative and I hate SJW's and all their causes"... not so much. It would be a lot simpler to just say "I'm a conservative and as a conservative I don't truck with BLM, that's a liberal thing, so I'm against the NFL protesters"... but that doesn't sound noble enough.

@Commodore - Oooh (as I've said before) I love it when you call me "counselor" do that all the time from now on... seriously... what a rush! EDIT: Also,

Except in your analogy you used a situation in which I would actually be violating the professional standards of what it is to be a soldier.

*sigh* JR already cited the freaking RPCs to you... its all there in black and white... debunking the point that you are trying to make here... You are so wrong, so clueless on this issue and so in over your head man... and so off topic... c'mon man, this tangent is a fools errand... just go back to talking about football, something that there is more of a level playing field for us to talk about... and is the actual topic of the thread.

 

[JollyRoger]

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. What if you were the best possible legal representation that klansman could get in a matter wholly unrelated to his politics? You would deny him the best legal representation simply because you can't put your personal politics aside? That sounds pretty unprofessional to me.

Given there are so many lawyers in my jurisdiction, it would be arrogant to assume I am the one that would be able to provide any client the best possible legal representation. However, I have a limited inventory of time to spend on client matters and I have every right to fill that inventory with the mix of legal work that comes my way that I want to take on. Obviously, I discriminate based on a client's ability to pay me and decline representation where, even though I could competently represent a client in a matter, the client is not willing or able to pay me what I want for taking on the representation. Is that unprofessional or common business sense? Another factor I would consider is whether representing the client would be a negative experience for me. Why should I devote my time to working for a client that is going to make me miserable? Life is too short for such nonsense. Any decent guide to running a law practice will tell you that one of the most important things to success is wisely declining representation. Klansman easily fits within an probable decline for me - except maybe for a one off matter such as a will. Any long term project such as litigation would likely be out of the question. He is not denied legal representation - he is denied legal representation from me. There are plenty of other lawyers in my neck of the woods that will take him on as a client.

 

[Commodore]

*sigh* JR already cited the freaking RPCs to you... its all there in black and white... debunking the point that you are trying to make here... You are so wrong, so clueless on this issue and so in over your head man... AND SO OFF TOPIC... c'mon man, this tangent is a fools errand... just go back to talking about football, something that there is more of a level playing field for us to talk about... and is the actual topic of the thread.

Hey, you're the one who brought your profession into this so don't try to wiggle out of it now. And you are trying to wiggle out of it, as evidenced by the constant dodging of points being raised and now by trying to steer the conversation away from your profession and your professional integrity.

Obviously, I discriminate based on a client's ability to pay me and decline representation where, even though I could competently represent a client in a matter, the client is not willing or able to pay me what I want for taking on the representation. Is that unprofessional or common business sense?

Not at all unprofessional. If a client is unable to pay for your services, then you aren't the best possible (key word there) legal representation.

Why should I devote my time to working for a client that is going to make me miserable?

Because it's not about you. It's the same with soldiers. You think I was thrilled when my unit got the word we were being deployed? Hell no. Was I miserable when I was over there? You bet. Were there things I could have done to avoid that deployment? Yep. But I deployed with my unit because again, it wasn't about what I wanted or what made me happy. If you didn't want a job that sometimes means making yourself miserable to help someone else, then you shouldn't have been a lawyer.

He is not denied legal representation - he is denied legal representation from me. There are plenty of other lawyers in my neck of the woods that will take him on as a client.

This sounds an awful lot like the excuses wedding cake makers were using back when they were refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples. And as I recall, you were one of the people criticizing that stance. And now here you are, taking the same stance on something that is arguably even more trivial than sexual orientation.

 

[Berzerker]

Which is of course not anything that anyone in this thread has ever said.

Sommers thinks the Klan should be defended?

Lawyers aren't required to take every case that walks through the door, nor is there an expectation that they be free from political opinions.

Ethics requires that if a lawyer believes their own views will interfere with their ability to represent a given client, that they decline to try to do so anyways. This is in the best interest of the client.

I don't know where anyone got this ridiculous notion that lawyers aren't expected to be actual human beings. The whole point of legal ethics is to protect clients from the human failings that all lawyers have, what with them being human beings and all. Trying to gotcha us with, "Oh lol you aren't soulless automatons!" is ridiculous.

Which is of course not anything that anyone in this thread has ever said.

Yes I'm aware of that and it failed in that purpose

On the contrary, because of my question you've gone from effing the ayholes to defending their constitutional rights

I reject the slippery slope argument as its patently absurd. Underlying the slippery slope argument in this context is the idea that "We need to do/tolerate something really bad in order to prevent some hypothetical fantasy also bad thing in the undefined hypothetical future." It's a hogwash argument that people use to cover the simple reality... It's fun and intellectually masturbatory to play devils advocate, and/or play the martyr/the bigger person.

I didn't make a slippery slope argument, I didn't suggest the Klan will be rounded up if their free speech isn't protected. I asked if you would defend the Klan if they were being rounded up (well?). Instead of answering unambiguously you wandered off into constitutional rights land. Yes, they have constitutional rights too. Do you defend their rights or not? When you're defending the Constitution are you defending the Klan? I've never found the word in the document.

The reason I say this is because you gave away earlier that your prior stated reason for defending the Klan, the "Passionate about Freedom of Speech" claim was, as I suspected, not entirely accurate.

How was it inaccurate?

Once we stripped away the typical varnish defense we always hear, ie "I'm not defending the Klan I'm defending Free Speech!" and got you to realize that defending the Klan's rights is defending the Klan...

You flatter yourself, I'm not smart enough to realize they're the same thing. Reminds me of a GOP bigshot under Reagan (AG?) who called the Bill of Rights 'criminals rights'. You see, he equated our rights with the rights of criminals much like how you've done with free speech and the Klan - and therefore defending those rights was defending criminals. Of course criminals were more likely to need those rights defended, but I wouldn't suggest lawyers defend criminals, they defend our rights... Some do anyway, and some eff ayholes.

See in that moment you gave yourself away... you admitted that for you its all about feeling like your living up to a higher moral standard... in other words, feeling like you're being the bigger person, being the better person... putting on you WWJD hat... "I defend the Klan because of The Golden Rule" is a highly intellectually masturbatory position to be taking... and ultimately its a farce, here's why...

Yeah, I think avoiding hypocrisy is a higher moral standard than embracing it... But why would somebody else's hypocrisy make you feel better about yourself? It aint a competition, my sins do not disappear just because other sinners exist. What you think about free speech doesn't determine what I think, and I think its hypocritical for me to want free speech for myself while denying it to others. You think you're avoiding this hypocrisy because you dont defend free speech (when did that start?), but dont you defend your own?

Do you see that by treating the Klan how you would want to be treated (ie treating them according the to The Golden Rule) is simultaneously treating others, gays, jews and blacks for example, how you would not want to be treated... specifically by enabling, protecting and elevating people who are trying/wanting to do them harm?

You mean if someone hates me the Golden Rule requires ending free speech? And you expect me to take credit for ('want') its death? Do gays, jews and blacks want to be free to speak? How will they be free if I've ended it because of the Klan? Can we ask the gays, jews and blacks if they'd like to sacrifice free speech to silence the Klan?

Another nuance is that if one of their goals is to intimidate jews, treating them how you would want to be treated if you were them is by letting them intimidate jews, but what about treating them how you would want to be treated if you were you? Frankly if I was mistreating jews... how I'd want to be treated, is for someone to tell me to stop... and if necessary... punch me in the face.

So see, "The Golden Rule" doesn't really work in this context, but I understand what you were doing by invoking it... trying to invoke some higher morality in defending the Klan... which frankly, I reject.

I dont see a higher morality served by an end to free speech, but verbal intimidation may or may not be free speech. Griping about Jews is, threatening to punch people is not.

I have already acknowledged the existence of Constitutional rights, including Freedom of Speech. What I keep telling you over and over is that we choose who we want to defend. I choose to defend the NFL players, not the Klan.

But if you acknowledge the Klan's rights, you are defending them. Wasn't that your argument when other people defended their rights? Like I said, accusing people of hypocrisy for not enthusiastically defending both the Klan and the players when you obviously dont believe in free speech is a weak position from which to complain about hypocrisy. The two situations are not the same and trying to make them the same so you can accuse people of hypocrisy is unfair.

My point...which I have stated repeatedly... is that this is all that you are doing and you (the royal you) are using "Free Speech" as an excuse to simply defend the people that you want to defend... for political and personal reasons, that have nothing to do with any commitment to Freedom Speech. The hypocrisy isn't the point of my charge. The point of my charge is the dishonesty. I point to the hypocrisy simply because the hypocrisy exposes the dishonesty. If folks really cared about Free Speech there would be no hypocrisy, they would be consistent, but they aren't... they are hypocritical, because they were dishonest (possibly with themselves) about their reasons for defending the Klan. If they had been honest and simply admitted, for example, that they are defending the Klan because of their conservative political alignment/ideology, it would be easy for them to explain their opposition to the NFL players based on that same alignment. But they are trying to be coy/being dishonest (again, maybe to themselves) about their alignment and the role that it plays in the positions they take.

The speech that is under attack is generally the speech that gets defended, it doesn't matter who the speaker is...generally But your accusation requires equating violent attacks on speakers with players possibly losing a job for kneeling during the anthem. Well, aren't they being paid to stand?

I understand conservatives defending the Klan as they are political allies of the Klan. So... again... If you like the Klan or you'd like to defend the Klan... you do you. There will always be people like you, who like defending the Klan, white supremacists and so on, so they will never be lacking in defenders. I, on the other hand will be defending the NFL players, because I like them, and I support their cause. You can try to call that hypocrisy, but really it isn't, because I never made the phoney claim to be defending the NFL players on Freedom of Speech grounds. I am honest about the fact that I support the players and their cause and I don't support the Klan... so I don't have to worry about hypocrisy.

You're not defending the players free speech? "I like them" is the moral high ground from which you're tossing thy holy hypocrite grenades?

 

[metalhead]

Because it's not about you. It's the same with soldiers. You think I was thrilled when my unit got the word we were being deployed? Hell no. Was I miserable when I was over there? You bet. Were there things I could have done to avoid that deployment? Yep. But I deployed with my unit because again, it wasn't about what I wanted or what made me happy. If you didn't want a job that sometimes means making yourself miserable to help someone else, then you shouldn't have been a lawyer.

It's in the client's best interest that their lawyer not have a personal problem with them. Declining representation that a lawyer knows is going to cause either stress over payment, or personal conflict is done for the client's benefit. I don't know why you're either ignoring or failing to grasp this concept.

This is who is saying lawyers should be soulless automatons, Berz. Commodore apparently thinks lawyers aren't human beings that can provide every client the best representation regardless of the circumstances. And apparently, that lawyering is no more difficult than baking a cake.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hey, you're the one who brought your profession into this so don't try to wiggle out of it now.

I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything. You've been conclusively proven wrong, and the tangent you've wandered into isn't even remotely related to the thread topic. It's just all bruised ego for you now. Speaking of wriggling out of things. You blatantly lied about and strawmanned my position, including once lying about something that actually is the thread topic, and you haven't addressed your lie at all, despite responding to the post where I pointed it out... no apology, no "kiss my butt", nothing. So you're the one who's "wriggling out".

How was it inaccurate?

Because you said:

Yeah, I think avoiding hypocrisy is a higher moral standard than embracing it

So once again... you demonstrate that this (defending the Klan or the NFL players) isn't about "Free Speech" for you... Its about your trying to make a show of your "higher moral standard". Thanks for again proving my point.

 

[Sommerswerd]

@Berzerker As for the rest... as you pointed out you started this thread... So again... Where has your passionate defense of the NFL players gone??? Why are you biting down so hard on defending the Klan???

Let me explain why... Because the Klan is who you really care about, not the NFL players. The Klan is what you really want to talk about. The Klan is what you're really interested in. That's why you can't get back on topic. Thanks again for proving my point.

But why would somebody else's hypocrisy make you feel better about yourself? ...

You're not defending the players free speech? "I like them" is the moral high ground from which you're tossing thy holy hypocrite grenades?

One more time... Its not about hypocrisy. Its about people hiding behind the lame "defending free speech" excuse. That is the source of the hypocrisy. I'm not doing that, so there is no hypocrisy. I readily embrace the NFL players cause. You Klan defenders aren't willing to openly embrace the Klan's cause so you need an excuse to explain why you defend them... so you use "Free Speech"... and you NFL player condemners aren't willing to admit that you oppose the BLM cause/message... so you use "methodology" as your lame excuse.

That is the argument that I am making, and that is what you (@Berzerker and @Commodore) have helped to conclusively establish.

 

[Commodore]

You blatantly lied about and strawmanned my position

No, I didn't. Now you are just denying reality. I said no player has been fired or punished because of these protests and you responded with "Tell that to Kaepernick". That shows you were clearly operating on the incorrect assumption that 1) Kaepernick was fired and 2) that he was fired because of his protests. Neither one of those statements was accurate and when I pointed that out, your response was basically "that's not what I said". He quit his job voluntarily and the reasons had nothing to do with his protests. So I'd be interested to hear how one voluntarily quitting their job means their livelihood was threatened by their employer or the government? You know, since you keep sticking to that "their livelihoods are being threatened" argument. By the way, you ever gonna explain exactly how the livelihoods of players are being threatened? You've been asked to elaborate on that several times and you just keep responding with the same vague "well Trump said..." without actually explaining what real steps have been taken against the players to threaten their employment.

As for the player protests in general: I actually don't have a problem with how they were doing it this week. Players were still protesting in various ways, but not a single one of them knelt during the anthem. Glad to see the players were willing to meet the NFL halfway on the issue. Basically the compromise seems to be that the NFL won't change the rules or try to punish players for protesting during the anthem and the players will still protest but just won't protest by kneeling.

And look! The NFL and players come to that understanding and no one is outraged! It's amazing how easy things go when you are actually willing to compromise instead of acting like a stubborn jerk "for the cause".

It's just all bruised ego for you now.

Nah. Sure bruised your ego though. Know how I can tell? Because once I started calling your entire profession and your personal sense of professionalism and integrity into question, you completely changed your posting style. You abandoned your normal calm, collected posts and started flying into tangents and even flat denying you said things that you literally said a few posts prior. Both you and JR also got very defensive about what it means to be a lawyer. Kinda funny how two lawyers let some common street peasant like myself put you on the defensive like that.

At least I learned something here. I thought lawyers were supposed to be unshakable, but apparently not seeing as I seem to have ruffled your feathers pretty good.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No, I didn't.

Yes you did. As I have already pointed out... now for the third time... This statement:

He is on record as saying he doesn't believe white supremacists should have their rights defended.

Is a baldfaced lie. However, I will admit that I was mistaken, in the sense that what you told a baldfaced lie about was not really on-topic for the thread, it was the tangent you are on, that has been so thouroughly debunked. So again. You lied, but not strictly speaking... about the thread topic.

I said no player has been fired or punished because of these protests and you responded with "Tell that to Kaepernick".

Now this is a lie about the thread topic. So much lying... I always thought soldiers were supposed to act with honor and integrity?? Guess not... Anyway you said:

There is absolutely no threat to the livelihoods of NFL players over this. At worst, they will face fines and suspensions. And since the fines are a drop in the bucket compared to their salaries and they still get paid while under suspension, the threat to their livelihoods is precisely zero. There is not a single person that has the authority to fire NFL players that is advocating or threatening to fire protesting players. Jones said he will bench them. Big whoop. They still get paid even if they are benched.

So you keep alluding to this threat to their livelihoods, but where is it? As long as they are getting paid, they still have their livelihood.

And I responded to this by saying:

Tell that to Colin Kaepernick... What's his case? The exception that debunks your rule? Speaking of which there is actually an active claim filed over this so I guess we will let the Courts sort it out. At a minimum, your argument is on very shaky ground.

So as you can see, you were 100% clear that I was talking about livelihoods not just firing. So both you and I were talking about a threat to their livelihood, not just being fired. You realized that you lost that argument, so you tried to switch the goalpost... as you always do when you lose an argument... to limit the discussion to firing and only firing... This is made clear by you then saying

Colin Kaepernick wasn't fired because of his protests though. In fact, he wasn't fired at all.

We weren't just talking about firing... we were talking about livelihoods being threatened, which is not the same thing. If I marginalize you at your job and make it so that you can't excel or show your skills or gain any experience or recognition or promotion... I am threatening your livelihood... even if I am still paying you... because I am hindering your ability to advance in your career and become attractive and competitive to other employers. Benching a player hurts his stats, his marketability, his bonuses (which are typically stats based), everything about his job is hindered by being benched, so yes... you are threatening his livelihood. Not to mention the fact that tarring a player with the "troublemaker" label means that once you cut them or they leave your team, they wont be able to get picked up by other teams, or they will be lowballed because you've made them toxic... so once again, their livelihood is threatened.

 

[Commodore]

We weren't just talking about firing... we were talking about livelihoods being threatened, which is not the same thing. If I marginalize you at your job and make it so that you can't excel or show your skills or gain any experience or recognition or promotion... I am threatening your livelihood... even if I am still paying you... because I am hindering your ability to advance in your career and become attractive and competitive to other employers. Benching a player hurts his stats, his marketability, his bonuses (which are typically stats based), everything about his job is hindered by being benched, so yes... you are threatening his livelihood. Not to mention the fact that tarring a player with the "troublemaker" label means that once you cut them or they leave your team, they wont be able to get picked up by other teams, or they will be lowballed because you've made them toxic... so once again, their livelihood is threatened.

Okay, he was benched. But he wasn't benched because of his protests, he was benched because the 49ers had a better QB at the time. In fact,he was benched long before he even started his protest, which is why his detractors have accused him of only protesting as a publicity stunt because his NFL career was failing.

In fact here's an article from 2015 that explains all the reasons Kaepernick was benched: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/7-f...aepernick-was-just-benched-for-blaine-gabbert

TLDR: He was benched because his stats were slumping and he went from being a winning QB to a horribly failing QB in a relatively short period of time. And again, all this was before he started protesting, so there is absolutely no way you can claim any of this was because he was protesting.

So okay, you've answered one part of the question and shown that Kaepernick's livelihood was threatened. However, his livelihood was not threatened because of his protests, so you still have not shown how NFL players' livelihoods are being threatened because of the protests. That is argument you are trying to make and have still not shown any supporting evidence for.

Again, there is not a single NFL player (Kaepernick included) that was benched, fired, or punished in any way, shape, or form by the NFL or the team they play for because they have knelt during the national anthem.

Not to mention the fact that tarring a player with the "troublemaker" label

Sure, but as of right now there is no evidence to suggest the 49ers, any other team, or the NFL as an organization has labelled him as a troublemaker. That is an accusation Kaepernick has levied against the NFL in his grievance claim, but so far there is no proof or even evidence of his claims. You're making assumptions without evidence and basing your entire argument off of those assumptions.

EDIT: In short, again, your Kaepernick example fails on every level.

EDIT2: So again, I must ask that you answer the question: What, specifically, is the threat to NFL players' livelihoods over this protest? The fact that it's had to be asked this many times without a clear answer from you shows that you are unable to answer this question.

 

[metalhead]

Kaepernick is without a job. And he couldn't even get a workout with a team whose starting QB got injured, who ended up signing a QB who is objectively worse than Colin Kaepernick at playing QB. This team, the Titans, can't use a "system" excuse either, because their system is one similar to what Kaepernick has run well in the past.

I'm sure you'll trot out a "you haven't proven that beyond reasonable doubt" comeback, because that seems to be the last refuge of people with indefensible positions. But teams who would be better with Kaepernick on their roster refusing to even give him a workout doesn't have many possible explanations.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Okay, he was benched. But he wasn't benched because of his protests, he was benched because the 49ers had a better QB at the time. In fact,he was benched long before he even started his protest, which is why his detractors have accused him of only protesting as a publicity stunt because his NFL career was failing.

In fact here's an article from 2015 that explains all the reasons Kaepernick was benched: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/7-f...aepernick-was-just-benched-for-blaine-gabbert

TLDR: He was benched because his stats were slumping and he went from being a winning QB to a horribly failing QB in a relatively short period of time. And again, all this was before he started protesting, so there is absolutely no way you can claim any of this was because he was protesting.

So okay, you've answered one part of the question and shown that Kaepernick's livelihood was threatened. However, his livelihood was not threatened because of his protests, so you still have not shown how NFL players' livelihoods are being threatened because of the protests. That is argument you are trying to make and have still not shown any supporting evidence for.

Again, there is not a single NFL player (Kaepernick included) that was benched, fired, or punished in any way, shape, or form by the NFL or the team they play for because they have knelt during the national anthem.



Sure, but as of right now there is no evidence to suggest the 49ers, any other team, or the NFL as an organization has labelled him as a troublemaker. That is an accusation Kaepernick has levied against the NFL in his grievance claim, but so far there is no proof or even evidence of his claims. You're making assumptions without evidence and basing your entire argument off of those assumptions.

EDIT: In short, again, your Kaepernick example fails on every level.

EDIT2: So again, I must ask that you answer the question: What, specifically, is the threat to NFL players' livelihoods over this protest? The fact that it's had to be asked this many times without a clear answer from you shows that you are unable to answer this question.

Now that you have finally been forced to admit... after pages and pages and pages of wriggling... that I was right and you were wrong about there being a treat to an NFL player's livelihood, specifically Kaepernick, you are now trying to move the goal post to whether or not the threat to his livelihood is as a result of the protest. First off... Remember you were originally arguing that there was no threat to livelihoods... now you've lost that argument and you're trying to argue that the threat is there but its not because of the protest.

But that is irrelevant... Don't you see that? You've just admitted that being benched constitutes a threat to a players livelihood... The Cowboys owner threatened, point blank, to bench anyone who kneels for the anthem. So by your own admission, the Cowboys owner threatened the players' livelihoods. This part of the argument is over. Agreed?

So now lets get back to my main point. All this twisting and turning that to justify opposition to the protest and all these tangential, erroneous, red herring arguments are just subterfuge for opposition to the BLM cause. And the reason that you in particular oppose the cause has squat-all to do with Free Speech (or methodology) concerns. You, like many who oppose the protest, are simply irritated by black people complaining about racism. That's it... it just irritates you, its a pet-peeve of yours. You have demonstrated this time and time again on these threads. Allegations of racism just get under your skin like nothing else. That's why you oppose the protest. Because the protest represents people complaining about racism and you just can't stand that. But then you (the royal you) realize how saying "Ugh all these complaints about racism irritate me" comes off. You seem racially insensitive and people will start labeling... so to avoid that, here comes the noble excuse for the opposition... "methodology" and "employer's prerogative" etc. That way, nobody can label you as racially insensitive, or worse. Right?