Thread Tools

Display Modes

Iwatas · 08-23-2006, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sebastian Express

Rape is about power. To ever blame it on the victim is ridiculous. It has always been about power, it will always be about power. It is one of the single most humiliating and degrading things that can happen to a person, and when you humiliate and degrade someone, you gain power over them.

If you walk down a dark alley while flashing $100, is it partially your fault if you get mugged? Is the mugger all about "power"? I think he wants the money.

If an attractive woman dresses to kill, and gets drunk amidst horny men, does sex occur because of "power"? Or because people are hardwired to want sex, and alcohol lowers inhibitions? Which is common sense?

iWatas

BealzeeBob · 08-23-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crandc

Actually, I am not a liberal.

Fact #1: A poll taken only about a month ago showed that those who call themselves fundamentalists are far more likely to say that women who are raped are to blame, that they "asked for it". In fact, among fundamentalist Christian ministers, a full 75% believe that women who are raped "asked for it". So much for religion, specifically Christian religion, being a determining factor of how one views violence aginst women.

Do you have a link to that study? I'd be interested in what a Christian fundamentalist is defined as. I've know a fair number of ministers, and I've never met one that felt women who are raped "asked for it", unless there were some rare circumstances. Maybe I just don't know a fundamentalist.

Quote:

Fact #3: I did not say Islam is particularly respectful of women. I did say that Olajuwon at least lived by his faith - do not touch a woman not your wife - when those who claim Christianity did not. So that being a "bible thumper" does not equal treating women with respect.

To say that Islam isn't particularly respectful of women is a bit of an understatement, don't you think? Which of the other players at the strip club claimed to be a member of a Christian denomination that prohibits the touching of a women other than your wife?
[/quote]

Go Blazers

It's_GO_Time · 08-23-2006, 09:38 AM

Canzano wrote an article today basically about legal consultation given to Blazer players. Apparently the consultation message was the police are not your friends.

It is a sad and distorted message to send to a bunch of young male millionaires . . . but I have to agree that if you are commiting crimes, the police are not your friends.

Reep · 08-23-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiss_My_Darius

Canzano wrote an article today basically about legal consultation given to Blazer players. Apparently the consultation message was the police are not your friends.

It is a sad and distorted message to send to a bunch of young male millionaires . . . but I have to agree that if you are commiting crimes, the police are not your friends.

I had mixed feelings when reading the article. On the one hand, it bothered me to hear that, at least in part, the Blazers were telling their people "when you get caught doing something illegal, here's how you might be able to get away with at least part of it." That was very troublesome. However, on the other hand, I really didn't like Canzano's suggestion that civil rights aren't important and anyone who exercises their civil rights (by not cooperating) is doing someting wrong.

Now, I am about as far from the left as anyone can be, but it bothers me when someone says that you are wrong to use the civil rights granted to you by our nation. I'm just not sure if Canzano's words or the Blazers bothered me more.

**crandc** · 08-23-2006, 09:59 AM

Since I don't want to continue way off topic, if anyone wants the source of the studies I cited, PM me.

(One final OT point: it is true that when the playing field levels women and girls surge forward. That is why a majority of college students are now female. But, post college, women continue to be paid less and kept in lower jobs. Look at the majorities in the US Senate/House of Reps, Supreme Court, Fortune 500 executives, major newspaper editors, university presidents. Overwhelmingly white and male. And 3 examples of attitudes towards women:

a. A question was asked in a national publication regarding whether it was appropriate for Hillary Clinton to campaign for the US Senate wearing a pantsuit rather than a skirt/dress. The reply was that pantsuits are appropriate business attire for women and besides Clinton's legs are "not her best feature". Does anyone recall any male Senate candidate being assessed on the appearance of his legs?
b. Time magazine recently covered the story of the US soldiers accused of raping and killing a 14 year old Iraqi girl and killing her family. The story began with speculation over whether the girl was "beautiful" and concluded she was "ordinary". Does anyone recall the opening paragraph in a story on a male crime victim being about his appearance?
c. The San Francisco Chronicle a week ago reported on a local dispute taking place in Eureka, CA. They interviewed the main parties in the dispute, 5 men and 1 woman. The woman was described as "a well coiffed willowy blond". None of the men's size, hair color or hair style was mentioned.

Meanwhile, men are still debating under what circumstances women must be forced to carry pregnancies to term against our will.)

e_blazer1 · 08-23-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiss_My_Darius

Canzano wrote an article today basically about legal consultation given to Blazer players. Apparently the consultation message was the police are not your friends.

It is a sad and distorted message to send to a bunch of young male millionaires . . . but I have to agree that if you are commiting crimes, the police are not your friends.

I don't want to be an apologist for bad actions by some Blazers players, but Canzano's column is more of his typical twisting things to make the point he wants to make...whether it's accurate or not. In the context of what was being discussed, a situation where a player (or anybody, for that matter) has been stopped by police for some alleged violation of a law, the advice that "the police are not your friends" is absolutely accurate. The police are there to do their job, which is to gather facts relating to the incident. You have no obligation to make their job easier by providing them with evidence that may incriminate you. They are not there to protect your rights or to put the best light on situation so that it favors you. That's the job of your attorney.

Canzano's column makes it sound like this was the only advice given the players on legal matters and I have to call BS on that one. I can't imagine that the Blazers didn't also have plenty of discussions about players being responsible for obeying the law and staying out of trouble.

I get a kick out of Canzano talking about the Oregonian's big ethical discussions about how to handle the reporting of the Randolph matter. Of course, in his column, Canzano doesn't mind dropping little unsubstantiated innuendoes like a rumored deal of Randolph for KMart being nixed early on "presumably" because the Nuggets are worried about Randolph's penchant for getting into off-court problems. While I'm certain that Zach's legal troubles are a factor to any team thinking about trading for him, Canzano is simply making things up here without any substantiation. Personally, I think the Blazers would be a little reluctant to take on KMart given his injury record and lack of production of late. In my view, ethics in journalism for sports columnists calls for reporting facts as facts and clearly identifying when you're veering into supposition and commentary. Canzano is sadly lacking in this area.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm really tired of the constant sniping and bickering going on between the Oregonian and the Blazers. Isn't it time that both entities realize that they need each other and start behaving in a responsible and professional manner?

Samuel · 08-23-2006, 10:13 AM

I'm interested to read today's Canzano article interview transcript. Sounds like he was quite meticulous in his transcription technique years ago.

Reep · 08-23-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crandc

Since I don't want to continue way off topic,

Meanwhile, men are still debating under what circumstances women must be forced to carry pregnancies to term against our will.)

You obviously do mean to continue off topic. Your statements above are clearly emotionally based on your feelings. The factual content is lacking.

If you want to continue off topic (I don't recommend it) then please address what percent of women (even well educated women, gasp) choose to stay home (by their own choice, not chained in the basement) to raise families? And what effect do you think that has on your conclusions.

Second, explain how it that men (exclusively, by your statement) are the only one's interested in the life of a baby? How do you explain your ignoring of women who make up the other half of the pro-life movement? I guess it is okay to ignore those women because they don't matter.

I can't believe those awful men are at it again. First they recognize the rights of African-Americans to exist and not be slaves (can you believe that?) and now they want a fully sustainable baby to actually have the right to live? Those barbarians.

Mr. Chuck Taylor · 08-23-2006, 10:23 AM

If I owned the Blazers, I sure as heck would have my team educated on what to do at a police stop. Do you want the players to keep handing the cops their basketball cards as I.D.? Of course you never want them to get into a situation like that, but if it happens, why not have them prepared? Especially when the image of a NBA team is on the line - a lot of money is at stake.

Ed O · 08-23-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crandc

Meanwhile, men are still debating under what circumstances women must be forced to carry pregnancies to term against our will.)

And women are still debating how fast I can drive, what drugs I can put into my body, and what kind of porn I can watch!

Laws are crazy like that sometimes.

Ed O.

Mr. Chuck Taylor · 08-23-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

Why is his reputation as a man even relevant?

He's a basketball player. He's paid to play basketball. The only reason any of us know he exists is because he's tall and an excellent, excellent player of the sport.

If and when he commits crime that impacts his ability to play basketball, then that's what should matter. He hasn't done that to date (that we know of) and he hasn't even been charged here.

Ed O.

Even if you are of the opinion that talent is all that matters on the court, I still think it's naive to completely dismiss the relevancy of a player's reputation. A player's reputation affects his trade value around the league, which in turn affects the talent level of the team, which affects how many games you win. It affects the fan support of the team, which in turn affects the ownership situation (which is especially important in our situation). Those are big enough reasons for me to care about a player's reputation.

Reep · 08-23-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

And women are still debating how fast I can drive, what drugs I can put into my body, and what kind of porn I can watch!

Laws are crazy like that sometimes.

Ed O.

You are gifted at knowing how to make a point.

BlazerFanFoLife · 08-23-2006, 11:13 AM

there is a study that showed that a higher percentage of women were content at being in the back seat and not at the top of the food chain while more men are willing to be in the spot light and do what it takes. If more men try to be CEO's and Congressmen then there will be more male CEO's and Congressmen. I read a study in school if its important to you, search on google. It had scientific evidance on why and everything

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes