ESPN's Britt McHenry

[PawDawg]

Maddawg defined a failure to answer cruelty with cruelty as weakness. I cited a well-known historical figure who demonstrated repeatedly that declining to answer cruelty with cruelty actually constitutes moral strength. Maddawg then referenced an instance of that individual's righteous anger, implying that the cruelty seen in the video may have been similarly justified. Yet one sees no evidence of righteousness in the video, only anger.

Again, this is not at all the way it went down.

I defined running away from trouble as a weakness.

You brought Jesus into the discussion by implying He ALWAYS turned the other cheek.

I simply pointed out to you that He did not ALWAYS turn the other cheek.

[PawDawg]

Yes, there is a higher standard for public figures. What of it? It aint new.

I'll play along and agree (for now) there is a higher standard for public officials. My argument, that you keep ignoring, is that certain people groups do this sort of thing and it is over looked by the same folks who have had a hay day with this story.

[Champ967]

Again, this is not at all the way it went down.

I defined running away from trouble as a weakness.

You brought Jesus into the discussion by implying He ALWAYS turned the other cheek.

I simply pointed out to you that He did not ALWAYS turn the other cheek.

You inserted the ALWAYS. That was not the intended implication. I meant only to demonstrate that avoiding trouble, or even accepting undeserved treatment, need not be construed as weakness.

[Champ967]

that certain people groups do this sort of thing and it is over looked by the same folks who have had a hay day with this story.

That's a fair point. And I dont have a good answer for it.

But when when people behave nicely, there's no scandal to report. So if our loss of collective privacy, while regrettable, spurs everyone to double down on their manners, I'll call that a silver lining.

[Soonerdawg]

Yes, that's a salient point on a related issue.

But I'm refuting maddawg's claims that 1) Ms. McHenry's behavior was (or may have been) justified by provocation; and 2) that submission equals weakness.

I see. Justified as opposed to the provoker having a reasonable expectation that her provocation would provoke.

[inudesu]

I will. She used words. Only words. Now that towing company that in all probability is a criminal operation has aired half of a private dispute so you and others can choose sides like an Oprah television show. I don't know and don't care about their private dispute. I don't care who was wrong and who was right. I do care that an asshole made it a public issue. So I will stand up for that liberal who apparently used very bad judgment.



You are judging the right/wrong of the parties' actions. I choose not to care what she said. It was an argument between two individuals and we only have half of it.



I'm not even close to understanding what you are asking, well implying, here.

So if our loss of collective privacy, while regrettable, spurs everyone to double down on their manners, I'll call that a silver lining.

I wouldn't want my failings to be made more public than they already may be. If I am rude to someone I encounter, then hopefully that rudeness will usually remain between the two of us.

But what I do and say are a part of who I am. And what I do and say does have consequences. And yes, it's very hard to differentiate between what "should" be made public and what shouldn't. I am much less concerned on a personal level for someone who acts poorly and then gets in trouble in some sense for acting like a jerk than I am for someone who gets caught on film picking their nose or not crossing their legs or tripping on a staircase. And while md will point out (again) that we don't know what was being said on the other side here, I think that we know that we don't know that and we make our determinations with that as part of the equation.

[Soonerdawg]

That's a fair point. And I dont have a good answer for it.

But when when people behave nicely, there's no scandal to report. So if our loss of collective privacy, while regrettable, spurs everyone to double down on their manners, I'll call that a silver lining.

I'll acknowledge your silver lining that one person's bad manners may force other people to have better manners, if you will acknowledge that the huge black cloud that is lined with the bad manners of making private matters public is detrimental to the public itself.

[Champ967]

I see. Justified as opposed to the provoker having a reasonable expectation that her provocation would provoke.

Correcto-mundo.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

The lady whose company steals cars or the liberal reporter?

The hot blonde

[Champ967]

I'll acknowledge your silver lining that one person's bad manners may force other people to have better manners, if you will acknowledge that the huge black cloud that is lined with the bad manners of making private matters public is detrimental to the public itself.

"Force" is a strong word. I wouldve said "encourage" or "incentivize". These are the sorts of squishy euphemisms we pinko commies prefer.

I'll agree that making private matters public is generally detrimental to society, but I'm not prepared to state that categorically. There may be some circumstances under which making a private matter into a public matter is warranted.

[techman05]

[QUOTE=Soonerdawg;1517786]

You are judging the right/wrong of the parties' actions. I choose not to care what she said. It was an argument between two individuals and we only have half of it.


Wonder if service vehicles will be required to install recording equipment that will capture conversation from front and back seat due to instances such as this?

[arkansasbob]

thanks to champ and inudesu for picking up the argument where i left off. i don't think i could have done it any better. i will only re-iterate that refusing to act afool when provoked is a sign of extreme strength, never of weakness. and the stronger the provocation, the more strength it takes to stay above it.

[arkansasbob]

Gotta catch them on the 30s for the news summaries.

3 minutes of carefully-selected headlines just doesn't leave me feeling informed. i prefer to get my headlines from the internet. then i can dig deeper into the stories that interest me and ignore the ones about celebrities having babies or being caught on camera acting like an ass...