naa... I aint prejudiced, Canton. Some of my best friends have completely different religious views. Look how different SF and I think about these things--he's completely full O' crap. Yet, he's one of my favorite posters on B&G, AND I love Zooey too.

I dont know what it is about this board, but everybody here is so freakin cool. This discussion would have turned into WWIII over you -know-where, and probably on most of the net.

Hope everybody has a great weekend. Houston Who-Dats, we're doing crawfish this weekend. PM me for details.

So, I wonder what the update is now on LT?

When people make the interpretation about “innocent until proven guilty” they should realize that this could only be applied to a court of law (you will not hear that phrase used in the court of law mind you) where the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Outside a court of law it is a different story. Weather or not you agree with it, public opinion (or sometimes just common sense) is a powerful force that does not need a guilty verdict to have an impact. Two cases in point are Ben Roethlisberger and OJ Simpson. Neither one was found guilty in a court of law. Yet OJ was forced to pay millions as the result of a civil lawsuit and Big Ben will be sitting out games this season and losing money due to a league suspension. So, obviously someone of power thought they were not “innocent” men even though they were never proven guilty. In LT’s case he may or may not be charged with any crimes. Yet even if he is not, a person is justified in having a feeling/reaction/opinion about the man and his character based upon his past and his recent choice to hire a girl to have sex with.
Imagine this sceneario. A teenage kid at your local high school is accused of rape by a fellow female student. But no charges are filed because they were both drunk at the same party and not enough evidence exists to prove rape. Two weeks later, your 16 year old daughter tells you that this same kid has asked her to the prom. So, ask yourself honestly if you would a) feel like he was never found guilty so it’s alright or b) feel that this kid has demonstrated poor character recently and not want him alone in a pontentially dangerous situation with your daughter?

So what exactly is your point?

"regardless of what you and your ilk choose to believe. A righteous man will pause and judge a person once all the facts are known.

Ben's punishment from the league is warranted.

We don't even know what LT did or didn't do. You go right ahead and think what you want to think. That's your right, but it doesn't mean one ounce of one thing at the end of the day.

Well, your reply requires a bit of typing, but I'll try to keep it short:





I thought it was obvious, but here it is again...(Quote myself COOL!!)

"a person is justified in having a feeling/reaction/opinion about the man and his character based upon his past and his recent choice to hire a girl to have sex with."

I was not there, so maybe I was wrong in saying "hire a girl to have sex with". Most accounts agree with that, but I will throw it out for your sake. So cut out everything after "based upon his pasat". So that is my point. You disagree with that? Yes or no...a simple question.





This is the part I love. You imply that you are more "righteous" than I am. You also liken me with some "ilk". What ilk is this? Those that disagree with you? Read my post again. I simply presented a viewpoint other than the boilerplate "innocent until proven guilty" that you use. But I carefully worded my post so that I never expressed that these were my feelings. I maintained a neutral position. I also never expressed anything saying LT should be punished. Just like I never did about Big Ben going back to past posts. I expressed an understanding for those that feel this way. But you have labeled me as "your ilk" multiple times and spouted off the "innocent" line beccause no legal finding. Seems to me a righteous man be willing to see another person's viewpoint and not label.



Oh is it? Based upon what? Your opinion? Being as I have had a neutral position so far, it seems that you have no logical basis for saying a suspension is warrantd for Ben with no guilt, but then calling out people for casting doubt on LT with no guilt (especially since he has past guilt). You're basically saying your type of prejudice is more justified than someone else's. No logic there at all.




Well, we agree upon the value of both our opinions. But what we don't agree on what LT has or has not done. He has self admittingly done multiple things that are illegal/morally questionable (I'd throw in a wikipedia reference but you'd just make fun of it). If a person wants to hold another person's multiple checkered past against them, then it seems reasonable to me.

I also wondered if you honestly answered A or B to my prom scenario Mr Righteous?

"a person is justified in having a feeling/reaction/opinion about the man and his character based upon his past..."

Yall need to come to the studio with me ..I recorded with a band out of Austin.Tx "the Bells of Joy"..im tellin you if dont have the holy spirit after that then you will pushin daiseys with ole saddam and adolf...lol....man im going to go to a black baptist church now,...lol...I seen the light.....Oh and all these dummies that keep screwing up and causing these boring debates between yall..are welcome to...lol