Jump to content

The Mizzou/Yale/PC/Free Speech Topic


FireChan

Recommended Posts

Her coach admits to "coaching" during the match.

Williams has made headlines for coming to blows with umpire Carlos Ramos after he gave her a coaching violation in the second set.

The tennis legend, who was then docked a point after she smashed her racket, told Ramos she would rather lose than cheat. 

'I'm honest, I was coaching,' Mouratoglou said after the game. 'I don't think she looked at me, so that's why she didn't even think I was.' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nanker said:

Her coach admits to "coaching" during the match.

Williams has made headlines for coming to blows with umpire Carlos Ramos after he gave her a coaching violation in the second set.

The tennis legend, who was then docked a point after she smashed her racket, told Ramos she would rather lose than cheat. 

'I'm honest, I was coaching,' Mouratoglou said after the game. 'I don't think she looked at me, so that's why she didn't even think I was.' 

 

What would her daughter think about her cheating and then lying about never cheating?!?  I want an apology! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2018 at 9:57 AM, DC Tom said:

Everything I've heard so far today is "It's shameful what the US Open did to Serena Williams."  Every damn story.

 

Good thing people have gotten wise to the bias of the media. (excluding Millennials). Most of the comments point out the false narrative; it's why a lot of the fake news media removed their comments sections.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

You do enslave the cow and violate its civil rights, however.  Which is their point.

it thought their point was, 'it's violence' and 'slaughter'. not sure animal enslavement qualifies that to either end.

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Foxx said:

it thought their point was, 'it's violence' and 'slaughter'. not sure animal enslavement qualifies that to either end.

 

We're talking about PETA, right?  The same people who consider it "violence" to make chickens lay eggs without classical music in the background?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Would you mind speaking to this?

well, he speaks to the uneven application of law, which i think anyone here knows is very prevalent as the rule of law is not really followed. the other is that he goes into the two sides of where people fall with respect to being on or against Serena's side. i just think that his correlations are mostly on target.

 

perhaps you can expound on where you think his assertions are insane?

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Foxx said:

well, he speaks to the uneven application of law, which i think anyone here knows is very prevalent as the rule of law is not really followed. the other is that he goes into the two sides of of where people fall with respect to being on or against Serena's side. i just think that his correlations are mostly on target.

 

perhaps you can expound on where you think his assertions are insane?

 

You're painting with broad brush strokes, and haven't articulated an argument.

 

The author of the OpEd made a declarative positive statement, sans evidence (his "sources" are little more than OpEd's themselves, drawing on data absent context, exclusionary of other evidence undermining their position), and you have taken up his mantle.

 

Thus, it falls to you to make the author's case.

 

Once you've done so, I'll critique it, and state my counter argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You're painting with broad brush strokes, and haven't articulated an argument.

 

The author of the OpEd made a declarative positive statement, sans evidence (his "sources" are little more than OpEd's themselves, drawing on data absent context, exclusionary of other evidence undermining their position), and you have taken up his mantle.

 

Thus, it falls to you to make the author's case.

 

Once you've done so, I'll critique it, and state my counter argument.

okay, i think your being a bit critical of my position and my reply but i'll see if i can be a bit more articulate but i don't know that my position requires my specificity.

 

as i said earlier, i think the title is off as the article goes into more areas than just the criminal justice system and actually speaks more to the divide that the political spectrum has created. though i do believe one can make an effective argument towards the political divide created within the criminal justice system as well, i think the overall argument is grander.

 

there is certainly the 'race' element contained within this issue, as well as the 'sexist' element with opinions falling on either side as to it being either or not.

 

he points out that there are differing sides on whether or not the rule of law is being fairly applied. of this there can be no denying that rules are rarely applied with any regularlity, consistentency or fairness.

 

perhaps the one area that i would have specific disagreement with, is that he asserts that the umpires decisions were far outside the norm. being that there really is no norm for the enforcement of the rules, how could anyone stress that the ump was acting outside of them.

 

i apologize if you are looking for something more but that is basically my position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...