NFL New Measures on Domestic Violence

[Sports Central1]

 Gay rights includes all of the liberties you listed above.  Though included, marriage is not the only component of the gay rights movement.  In this country, homosexuals have faced discrimination in employment, housing, and laws that made their relationships illegal.  So yeah, I feel fairly comfortable in drawing a comparison between gay rights, civil rights, and women's rights.  This is in no way a misrepresentation or misuse of the english language.

 

 

 

On the topic of domestic violence: 

The very last thing I want is to get into some internet slapfight over the semantics of legal definitions but here we are.

 

Domestic violence as defined by the department of justice: a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. It would be reasonable to think that the 'power and control'  pieces of the definition refer to the motive behind the actions of the abuser.  So a woman's reasons for staying in an abusive relationship would not likely change how the abuse is defined.  Also, why does this even matter?!  If Ray Rice committed battery against his fiance rather than an act of domestic violence is it somehow better in your mind?

 

With regard to your comparison of the Sherman and Sterling situations (better?):

 

Here is the difference between the two.  Richard Sherman is Richard Sherman and Donald Sterling is a former slum lord with a well a documented history of racist statements, discrimination, and harassment.  Let me break it down for you: when you have a  history of racism and discrimination,  saying " don't bring black people to my games" is gonna be widely acknowledged as a racist statement.

 

The rest of your post is paranoid babble that I won't address.  You can figure that stuff out on your own.

 

I'm a personal supporter of gay rights, women's rights, environmental concerns and the sciences.  But here's the thing with my stance vs liberal america's stance...I want to protect gay rights and women's rights from people who want to harm gay rights and women's rights = Religious extremists, specifically Muslims.  Sure, there are some dopey christians in this world but the real threat is from Islam, not from people like Ted Cruz.  I try to explain this to my liberal friends and they refuse to listen, they put multiculturalism above protection of certain rights.  They want to be tolerant to everyone (other than christians) who they can use to get a vote.

 

A great example is western europe where multiculturalism is not working.  In parts of London they have Sharia Law where gays aren't welcome and women are forced to be covered up.  That's a problem.  Now more Brits are joining the terrorist group ISIS instead of joining the British military.  

 

16% of French Citizens Support ISIS, Poll Finds...

http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795

 

Being "tolerant" means what and to what extent?  Do muslims have the right and power to demand businesses stop selling bacon because it offends them?  Well what about the rights of others who want the right to eat bacon?  There's a 1st amendment in the Constitution.  We have freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

 

And please stop the "most muslims are moderate" nonsense.  It's impossible to be a moderate muslim if you practice Islam since Islam is not a moderate religion.  There isn't one Islamic nation that is moderate.

[Sports Central1]

And yes "PC" and "PC media" is a problem especially when it's politically biased and used to silence one portion of the political population over the other.  Like in Ferguson.  Liberal americans and the liberal newsrooms have already made up their mind that the "Gentle Giant" was the victim without all the evidence in.  No one knows what really happened except the cop and Gentle Giant.

 

For years in europe the PC media attacked anyone who questioned the effects of allowing in muslim immigrants into their countries.  Well now we see it's been a disaster.

 

Political correctness is racially, religiously and politically biased.  It's not based on facts and accuracy but on emotion to push a personal narrative to control the thoughts of a society for political gain.

[DougDew]

Domestic violence as defined by the department of justice: a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. It would be reasonable to think that the 'power and control'  pieces of the definition refer to the motive behind the actions of the abuser.  So a woman's reasons for staying in an abusive relationship would not likely change how the abuse is defined.

Bobby, thanks for showing the definition. It is helpful to everyone.

Part of what I have been saying is that the definition of DV involves psychological manipulation in an intimate relationship. What if....Rice's girlfriend hand the dominant hand in the relationship? That she constantly threatened to take him for his net worth...or have some other form of manipulative attitude...all of the time. The definition does not say male or female. What if he just had enough of her oppression...and belted her? He is guilty of violence yes, but domestic violence? Does any talking head know the dynamics of their relationship?

The embedded and trained mentality we have is to assume that the man was the oppressor. Evident by your statement "So a woman.....". We know the male is usually the physical aggressor...but we don't know just how many times the woman has been the dominant personality and manipulator in a relationship.

Yes, I think people fail to grasp just how much the PC way of thinking serves as a basis for analyzing...and reacting to...a situation that they hear about. They make the assumptions they have been trained to make and they feel good when they react the correct way. That the male is the oppressor.

How many cases of DV has anybody experienced? How many cases of bullying, racism, sexism, or any oppression based problem? One, two, ..five, in a lifetime? Or...do we just read about it and are told it happens a lot? And who has been the perpetrator?

Because so many people don't bother to get things right before they react, companies like the NFL have to establish punishment guidelines out of fear that money will be lost, regardless of the facts of the matter. Essentially, when the NFL has the opportunity to make a statement about DV, or any other issue, they will have to send the "correct" message (defined by what WE assume to be the facts) and possibly punishing an employee strictly out of concern for a wrongly placed corporate image, not because he did anything wrong.

This isn't a black helicopter conspiracy thing..this is an explanation of how much left our sense of right and wrong has shifted due to the constant propaganda that has endured over many years about who oppresses whom...all of the time...and that it never stops. The idea that oppression is rampant...committed by the same people..(either male, or white, or wealthy..blah blah blah) so the remedy is the same...without even thinking about the facts.

The thread has hit repetitive mode a while ago...I'm out...

[Bobbycovert]

Bobby, thanks for showing the definition. It is helpful to everyone.

Part of what I have been saying is that the definition of DV involves psychological manipulation in an intimate relationship. What if....Rice's girlfriend hand the dominant hand in the relationship? That she constantly threatened to take him for his net worth...or have some other form of manipulative attitude...all of the time. The definition does not say male or female. What if he just had enough of her oppression...and belted her? He is guilty of violence yes, but domestic violence? Does any talking head know the dynamics of their relationship?

The embedded and trained mentality we have is to assume that the man was the oppressor. Evident by your statement "So a woman.....". We know the male is usually the physical aggressor...but we don't know just how many times the woman has been the dominant personality and manipulator in a relationship.

Yes, I think people fail to grasp just how much the PC way of thinking serves as a basis for analyzing...and reacting to...a situation that they hear about. They make the assumptions they have been trained to make and they feel good when they react the correct way. That the male is the oppressor.

How many cases of DV has anybody experienced? How many cases of bullying, racism, sexism, or any oppression based problem? One, two, ..five, in a lifetime? Or...do we just read about it and are told it happens a lot? And who has been the perpetrator?

Because so many people don't bother to get things right before they react, companies like the NFL have to establish punishment guidelines out of fear that money will be lost, regardless of the facts of the matter. Essentially, when the NFL has the opportunity to make a statement about DV, or any other issue, they will have to send the "correct" message (defined by what WE assume to be the facts) and possibly punishing an employee strictly out of concern for a wrongly placed corporate image, not because he did anything wrong.

This isn't a black helicopter conspiracy thing..this is an explanation of how much left our sense of right and wrong has shifted due to the constant propaganda that has endured over many years about who oppresses whom...all of the time...and that it never stops. The idea that oppression is rampant...committed by the same people..(either male, or white, or wealthy..blah blah blah) so the remedy is the same...without even thinking about the facts.

The thread has hit repetitive mode a while ago...I'm out...

Well we finally agree on something.  Anyhow, I've enjoyed the back and forth and hope there are no hard feelings.  Though we will probably never see eye to eye on social issues we might find common ground on issues related to Colts football...maybe  :yay:  In any event, thanks for the discussion.