LT accused of rape (Lawrence Taylor)

saintfan · 05-18-2010, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

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? That people have opinions? That these opinions can negatively affect someone's bottom line? And? Just because someone is accused doesn't make them guilty of a thing, 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. Conviction in a court of law isn't. 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.

SAINT_MICHAEL · 05-18-2010, 10:55 PM

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

Originally Posted by saintfan

So what exactly is your point?

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.

Originally Posted by saintfan

"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.

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.

Originally Posted by saintfan

Ben's punishment from the league is warranted.

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.

Originally Posted by saintfan

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, 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?

saintfan · 05-19-2010, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

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?

Didn't we do this in another thread? <sigh> Ok sir. Let's elaborate.

You know what they say about 'opinions', right? The old expression, that opinions are like

...everybody has one, has been around since Christ was a corporal. There's a reason people say that. I don't think it warrants an explanation, but I'm happy to provide one.

Now sir, you may feel justified in forming your opinion of someone because of their prior actions. GO YOU! Fact is, there are LOTS of people that do good things for many people AFTER they commit crimes or otherwise get themselves in a pickle. Ask around and you may be surprised to learn that you know a few. On the other hand, there are LOTS of people that otherwise appear to be 'good', only to end up in the clink. I'd bet you know a few of these people too.

There's another old expression - Never judge a book by its cover. I don't think it warrants an explanation, but as before I am happy to prove one if necessary.

Right-thinking people draw conclusions based on facts. Right-thinking people are skeptical of just about everything until they get proof. So, I may choose to NOT believe the words that come from a 16 year old runaway hooker, even though LT has a checkered past, because I feel the need, I have the desire, and I owe it to all parties concerned to wait until I have more evidence than is given to me by an attorney representing either side at a podium at a news conference held BY DESIGN to sway folks such as yourself.

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

I couldn't disagree with you more. Judge not lest ye be judged. Thems some good words right there youngun. You should think about it.

05-18-2010, 09:08 PM	#1
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Re: LT accused of rape (Lawrence Taylor) Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL 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? That people have opinions? That these opinions can negatively affect someone's bottom line? And? Just because someone is accused doesn't make them guilty of a thing, 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. Conviction in a court of law isn't. 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.
	C'mon Man...

05-18-2010, 10:55 PM	#2
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446	Re: LT accused of rape (Lawrence Taylor) Well, your reply requires a bit of typing, but I'll try to keep it short: Originally Posted by saintfan So what exactly is your point? 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. Originally Posted by saintfan "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. 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. Originally Posted by saintfan Ben's punishment from the league is warranted. 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. Originally Posted by saintfan 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, 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?
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446

05-19-2010, 11:35 AM	#3
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Re: LT accused of rape (Lawrence Taylor) Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL 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? Didn't we do this in another thread? <sigh> Ok sir. Let's elaborate. You know what they say about 'opinions', right? The old expression, that opinions are like ...everybody has one, has been around since Christ was a corporal. There's a reason people say that. I don't think it warrants an explanation, but I'm happy to provide one. Now sir, you may feel justified in forming your opinion of someone because of their prior actions. GO YOU! Fact is, there are LOTS of people that do good things for many people AFTER they commit crimes or otherwise get themselves in a pickle. Ask around and you may be surprised to learn that you know a few. On the other hand, there are LOTS of people that otherwise appear to be 'good', only to end up in the clink. I'd bet you know a few of these people too. There's another old expression - Never judge a book by its cover. I don't think it warrants an explanation, but as before I am happy to prove one if necessary. Right-thinking people draw conclusions based on facts. Right-thinking people are skeptical of just about everything until they get proof. So, I may choose to NOT believe the words that come from a 16 year old runaway hooker, even though LT has a checkered past, because I feel the need, I have the desire, and I owe it to all parties concerned to wait until I have more evidence than is given to me by an attorney representing either side at a podium at a news conference held BY DESIGN to sway folks such as yourself. "a person is justified in having a feeling/reaction/opinion about the man and his character based upon his past..." I couldn't disagree with you more. Judge not lest ye be judged. Thems some good words right there youngun. You should think about it.
	C'mon Man...