I think some people are forgetting that the Redskins organization is a private organization outside the city/provincial limits of D.C. Thus, it can name itself whatever it feels like, controversial or not. Further, the Redskins name is a top 5 franchise (in terms of $) in all of sports, on par with the Yankees and Cowboys. Rebranding would cost way more than the moral benefits it provides, so I don't expect anything to change anytime soon, regardless of the name's extent of offense (which is up for debate).
Of course it's clear. The term Redskins certainly isn't offensive in any way. I'm so glad you guys have cleared it up. What would all these silly Redskins possibly know about the subject anyway? Good thing we have all these experts with search engines to set the record straight.
Lesson: only correct injustices if they incur minimal costs Seriously though you cant just make a cost argument without explaining why the organization shouldnt near said cost. Ironic how you see $ as a greater cause to protect than equality.
White privilege logic: fight the easier fight and gloat victoriously as though youre personally vested in an issue that doesnt personally affect you. If that doesn't piss people off more than political correctness then you need to change your life (and moral) priorities.
That's pretty much what it comes down to - will the new heat on the name cause more damage than they would lose from long time fans & buyers of redskins gear if they changed it. Probably not, the name is gonna be here to stay
only a real fucking idiot would actually think they have made a point with such an asinine question. but to answer you, no, it would not be yours. why? because I live in a country, the United States, that has laws against theft and has laws that state that I have a right to what's mine and if someone violates that right, as in theft, I do not give up those rights. or do you really not know that there is additional context to the scenario you are questioning? or were you asking it n regards to a vacuum with no societal laws? which would then only validate my original point to begin with which you are actually attempting to dispute. but there are no planet earth laws in regards to who owns the natural land. I mean, c'mon, man, that was an embarrassingly stupid question.
Yes, but aren't those laws simply based upon what is ethical and rightful ownership? Which is what we are discussing here... you are saying that something is unethical because it is against the law... but aren't the laws themselves only a matter of ethics as to whom is the rightful owner of property?
Oh, and by the way, there's a little thing called International Law. You're such a fucking genius that I'm surprised you've never heard of it. Dumbass.
no, that isn't what I am saying at all. I am saying the United States has the power to authorize the laws it imposes on its people, and the power to ward off any body attempting to prevent them from doing so. who created international law, dumbfuck? a body of nations that have the power to make it an authority. international law doesn't exist as an independent concept of the body that created and enforce it. if aliens come to this planet to conquer, you think they are going to say, "oops, nevermind, I see this planet has laws that can't be opposed. sorry to waste everyone's time. dammit, Glarzakm I told you not to bother with Earth, it has absolute laws. we should have gone to Cantauri Omega on the other side of the galaxy." or are you saying international law created itself and gave itself to the bodies that enforce it? that would be your only other alternative, which is even more fucking stupid than your first attempt at an argument.
Listen, jackass, we were having a conversation about rightful ownership. You said that might makes right. That was your argument. My point is that the laws of our very own country are not based upon the ethics which you espouse. International law is complex and difficult to enforce, but it is based around many of the same ethics and still exists as law. How well or poorly law is enforced doesn't make the principles guiding the law any different. Law is law, regardless. Not to say that international law is never enforced. Remember Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait? You were probably still in diapers for that, but an entire international coalition came together to stop him.
that isn't what I said. I said the might has the right to make whatever laws it wants. whether you want to claim those laws are right morally is a completely different discussion. that was a very simply concept, so if you couldn't keep up with that, the jackass isn't I. to help you avoid further confusion with your cliches. I am saying that the might has the authority (right); how are you confusing that with the might is correct (right)? and your example of Kuwait is perfect. Iraq had the power to invade Kuwait, and did, and enforced their regime on the Kuwaiti people until an even mightier body stopped them. If the coalition force did not have the power to get Iraq out of there, they would still be there (unless another power had gone in afterwards). international laws did not get Iraq out of Kuwait; military force did. I am not sure how you missed that aspect of the war. that was why it is called the Iraq war, not the Iraq diplomatic discussions.
An entirely different discussion? Are you kidding me? LOL. You think we were having a discussion about who is making the laws in this country, the US Gov't or the native americans? What do you think, the posters in this thread believe that Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull wrote the laws for this country because they won the Battle of Little Bighorn?
no, that isn't what I said at all. or have you forgotten about the very first post of mine that you quoted. I recommend going back and reading it. clearly it wasn't about U.S. laws. you tried to make an dumbfuck analogy where U.S. laws were the answer, and now are apparently confused about the actual topic.
Military force that was dictated by international law, dumbass. I'm sorry, but you are so fucking stupid that is impossible to respond to your drivel anymore. Loser.
no, international law was the tool to justify the mightier power to kick Iraq out -- laws created by the mightier power. if the coalition Army wasn't strong enough to get Iraq out of there, Iraq would still be there, dumbfuck. laws have never done anything on their own. please explain how laws get enforced on their own without someone (or something) that has the power and authority to do so? if the laws had power, nobody would be able to break them and Kuwait would never have even been invaded by Iraq. holy shit, your idiocy is astounding.
no, laws work if they can be enforced. if you are now agreeing with that basic premise, you agree with the very first post you attempted to dispute.
No, I wouldn't be, because just because a law can be enforced doesn't make it a just law. If it did, we'd still be paying taxes to England.
