Marcus Smart

#179
#179
Regulator said:
Instead of responding in a physical manner, perhaps Smart should just have sued the man for Slander. Take everything he owns.
Click to expand...

There you go. You have a point though. We live in a country were you yourself can get sued/arrested for laying your hands on another (even if they instigated things), while you can just as easily remain calm yet rob them of lots of money in a civil suit. Makes no sense whatsoever. I know I'm probably simplifying things, but it makes no sense when you think about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#180
#180
Lawrence Wright said:
I see you moved the goal post to the 20 yard line.

You're equating blacks fighting for their constitutionally guaranteed rights that were being denied to the Marcus Smart dialogue.

Yeah, that's exactly the same. :no:
Click to expand...

Not at all. Those marching in the civil rights movement assumed the risks of being beaten and killed for what they were expressing, did they not?

You are the one who brought up assumption of risk (and then refused to explain what you even meant by it, after I asked). So, what function does this "assumption of risk" play in your defense of Marcus Smart? Why does it play a part there but not in defense of whites in Alabama, circa 1955, who were beating blacks who had assumed certain risks? Is it just an arbitrary and ad hoc distinction? Or, is it principled? If it is principled, what is the principle?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#184
#184
therealUT said:
Not at all. Those marching in the civil rights movement assumed the risks of being beaten and killed for what they were expressing, did they not?

You are the one who brought up assumption of risk (and then refused to explain what you even meant by it, after I asked). So, what function does this "assumption of risk" play in your defense of Marcus Smart? Why does it play a part there but not in defense of whites in Alabama, circa 1955, who were beating blacks who had assumed certain risks? Is it just an arbitrary and ad hoc distinction? Or, is it principled? If it is principled, what is the principle?
Click to expand...

I explained the assumption of risk, you just chose not to get it.

And I'm not defending Marcus Smart as much as I'm advocating the use of sound judgment to AVOID confrontations like the one we saw last night. On at least three occasions I've said Smart's reaction was dead wrong. Making alleged racial slurs isn't illegal, but it might get you assaulted or worse...the TT fan assumed that risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#185
#185
Probably already said by someone more intelligent than me, but quick thoughts: if fan said n-word, I don't mind Smart's reaction. Also, screw "superfans". If you're 50+ and your life revolves around screaming insults at 20 year olds...why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#186
#186
Lawrence Wright said:
I explained the assumption of risk, you just chose not to get it.

And I'm not defending Marcus Smart as much as I'm advocating the use of sound judgment to AVOID confrontations like the one we saw last night. On at least three occasions I've said Smart's reaction was dead wrong. Making alleged racial slurs isn't illegal, but it might get you assaulted or worse...the TT fan assumed that risk.
Click to expand...

If he hasn't already, realUT will respond that "sound judgment" is not applicable here. What is considered sound judgment can be arbitrary to cultural context. It was probably not considered sound judgment for Jews to protest their treatment in Nazi Germany or in the pogroms in Russia. But, to your point (indirectly), what we consider "inciting" and "disturbing the peace" are equally arbitrary. And just because our current legal interpretations probably favor the Super Fan in question, doesn't make his actions right. In fact, another interpretation of the law might find him at fault and Smart's actions completely acceptable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#187
#187
Lawrence Wright said:
I explained the assumption of risk, you just chose not to get it.

And I'm not defending Marcus Smart as much as I'm advocating the use of sound judgment to AVOID confrontations like the one we saw last night. On at least three occasions I've said Smart's reaction was dead wrong. Making alleged racial slurs isn't illegal, but it might get you assaulted or worse...the TT fan assumed that risk.
Click to expand...

Sure, making racial slurs might get one assaulted. Sitting in my living room might get me killed. This is why I brought up the issue of agency. You could not address that issue.

Is it that you are really wanting to refer to some type of cost-benefit analysis, in which what ought to guide our actions and judgments are the potential costs (which includes risks and probabilities of outcomes) weighed against the potential benefits? If that is the case, then I'd have to argue that this man deployed sound reasoning. After all, it's not everyday that an athlete assaults a fan, but it is an almost daily occurrence that fans rain down disparaging remarks on athletes. Further, it would be Marcus Smart, solely, who displayed a lack of sound reasoning. Him shoving a fan is not going to produce the benefit of not being taunted as much or more in the future; further, it will cost him a few games and, potentially, millions of dollars in the NBA Draft.

This, however, assumes that we ought to consult consequentialism for our normative guidance; and, hence, it entails that any rights, to include the right to free speech, are not really rights, because they are to be overridden whenever the presumed good to come out of them is outweighed by the presumed good that could come at trampling them. And, well, the notion of rights qua rights is they are supposed to be inviolable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#188
#188
govols120 said:
Probably already said by someone more intelligent than me, but quick thoughts: if fan said n-word, I don't mind Smart's reaction. Also, screw "superfans". If you're 50+ and your life revolves around screaming insults at 20 year olds...why?
Click to expand...
The problem is that the potential danger of a player entering the stands; especially on the road, is so great that they just can't do it.
 
#189
#189
volprof said:
If he hasn't already, realUT will respond that "sound judgment" is not applicable here. What is considered sound judgment can be arbitrary to cultural context. It was probably not considered sound judgment for Jews to protest their treatment in Nazi Germany or in the pogroms in Russia. But, to your point (indirectly), what we consider "inciting" and "disturbing the peace" are equally arbitrary. And just because our current legal interpretations probably favor the Super Fan in question, doesn't make his actions right. In fact, another interpretation of the law might find him at fault and Smart's actions completely acceptable.
Click to expand...

Totally agree that sound judgment is situational and arbitrary.

Do you consider it sound judgment to post your address on the internet to strangers, the invite them to carry out alleged threats of a physical altercation?
 
#190
#190
Is there any proof he said anything racial? I see a lot of people jumping to that conclusion but I've seen nothing to prove that's what happened.

The guy was a jackass for trash talking, but saying he had to say something racial is an assumption.
 
#192
#192
therealUT said:
Sure, making racial slurs might get one assaulted. Sitting in my living room might get me killed. This is why I brought up the issue of agency. You could not address that issue.

Is it that you are really wanting to refer to some type of cost-benefit analysis, in which what ought to guide our actions and judgments are the potential costs (which includes risks and probabilities of outcomes) weighed against the potential benefits? If that is the case, then I'd have to argue that this man deployed sound reasoning. After all, it's not everyday that an athlete assaults a fan, but it is an almost daily occurrence that fans rain down disparaging remarks on athletes. Further, it would be Marcus Smart, solely, who displayed a lack of sound reasoning. Him shoving a fan is not going to produce the benefit of not being taunted as much or more in the future; further, it will cost him a few games and, potentially, millions of dollars in the NBA Draft.

This, however, assumes that we ought to consult consequentialism for our normative guidance; and, hence, it entails that any rights, to include the right to free speech, are not really rights, because they are to be overridden whenever the presumed good to come out of them is outweighed by the presumed good that could come at trampling them. And, well, the notion of rights qua rights is they are supposed to be inviolable.
Click to expand...

We both agree Smart's actions were inappropriate.

And cutting through your rhetoric, it appears as though you agree that even though you have rights, sometimes it's wise not to exercise them based on potentially negative outcomes.

This was fun... :blink:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#193
#193
Lawrence Wright said:
We both agree Smart's actions were inappropriate.

And cutting through your rhetoric, it appears as though you agree that even though you have rights, sometimes it's wise not to exercise them based on potentially negative outcomes.

This was fun... :blink:
Click to expand...

Negative, I'm not a consequentialist. I don't waste my time with cost-benefit analyses regarding my actions.
 
#194
#194
VolsSportsFan said:
Is there any proof he said anything racial? I see a lot of people jumping to that conclusion but I've seen nothing to prove that's what happened.

The guy was a jackass for trash talking, but saying he had to say something racial is an assumption.
Click to expand...

From Twitter...take it for what it's worth...

@EricSports: Texas Tech fan Jeff Orr's text about the Marcus Smart incident, "Yeah i kinda let my mouth say something i shouldn't have. I feel bad."
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#195
#195
govols120 said:
Probably already said by someone more intelligent than me, but quick thoughts: if fan said n-word, I don't mind Smart's reaction. Also, screw "superfans". If you're 50+ and your life revolves around screaming insults at 20 year olds...why?
Click to expand...

You're taking my "man code" argument. Although therealUT is (rightfully) controverting this argument. Admittedly, it has no current legal ground. However, this brings up an array of issues. We admit that yelling "fire" is not free speech, because it's creating a public problem. How do we distinguish yelling "fire" from yelling "******," in this case? Technically both could be construed as creating a public problem. Yet one is considered free speech and the other unnecessary action. One could say that yelling fire is not a political/social view and, therefore, has no place. But to play Devil's advocate, what if I believe fire has a valuable place in our social sphere? What if I believe in fire as the primal element and think it key to aiding social change through public alarm?

Sounds silly, doesn't it? But, when you think about it, it really isn't that silly. What's the difference between me proclaiming the power of fire in public to create social change and me proclaiming racial superiority to create social change? The comparison sounds ridiculous, but is it really? Both are assuming social risks. Why do we punish one but not the other? Afterall, a person who believes in fire as an expression of social reality is conceivable (crazy but conceivable). And to Lawrence's point, he's basically arguing for common sense. While I agree with him, I also see no difference between what's considered "common sense" and what's considered the law today. Both are arbitrary according to social conditions.

In essence, I realize the value of free speech. But we also have to ask ourselves about context. What role does context play in our interpretation of law? We can't always take an absolutist approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#196
#196
Lawrence Wright said:
Totally agree that sound judgment is situational and arbitrary.

Do you consider it sound judgment to post your address on the internet to strangers, the invite them to carry out alleged threats of a physical altercation?
Click to expand...

Sound judgment is hardly arbitrary. Sound judgment pertains to the truth of one's premises and the validity of the form they use in coming to a conclusion. This conclusion can be about future actions, it can be about past actions, it can really be about anything. But, soundness is not arbitrary (and, neither is validity).
 
#198
#198
volprof said:
In essence, I realize the value of free speech. But we also have to ask ourselves about context. What role does context play in our interpretation of law? We can't always take an absolutist approach.
Click to expand...

We can take an absolutist approach, and we can say that the prohibition against yelling "fire" in a building ought not be a government prohibition. Christopher Hitchens says this exact thing, in a speech where he begins by yelling, "Fire! Fire! Fire!".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#200
#200
volfanngaytorland said:
Also saw an article where someone heard him say "You need to go back to Africa" tifwiw not sure if it's reliable at all but that's what was reported
Click to expand...

Seeing it is not 1975, really hard to imagine someone behaving this way in such a public place.

Not impossible, but hard to imagine.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top