Knickoftime wrote:The point always was the argument that a person of conscious should put their brain on hold in some broad deference to ideals they don't believe in is both moronic and unamerican.
No, the point is not about putting anyone's brain on hold, person of conscience or otherwise. This hasn't been about ideals or Noah supporting anything Noah doesn't happen to believe in. Making this about that is truly moronic. By attending a dinner and listening to a talk, no one was asking Noah to put his brain on hold, support "kids killing kids all over the world" or violate any other high ideal he holds.
It was a dinner invite. Not a recruitment event. Not a USO war bonds fundraiser. Not a briefing to review and approve the next mission the Army is being called to fulfill.
Funny, as the article pointed out, he didn't feel any high ideal violation when playing ball with the current CommanderinChief, who actually makes the calls to send these kids out that Noah is so overly concerned about. He's deploying a whole bunch of them to Afghanistan this December, actually. Guess it's also a relative matter as to who you can pick to be subjectively disrespectful or inappropriate to.
Knickoftime wrote:Being disrespectful and inappropriate is a completely subjective matter and will naturally be defined differently by those with different views. The important thing is what's the intentions of people like Noah or Kaepernick. Deciding for someone else they intend to disrespect others or institutions is ridiculous.
This is truly fascinating logic. You can judge others by their actions and judge yourself by your intentions. Noah dislikes the military because he views them as "kids killing kids" and that's his high-minded moral right of conscience. But West Point calling Noah's actions disrespectful and inappropriate is a completely subjective matter that may or may not have any actual value based on the intentions of the person who made the supposedly disrespectful and inappropriate act.
Knickoftime wrote:If you call the foundation of our 1st amendment a 'card', then yes, I'll play that card and that whole deck all day, every day. Now this of course is not a first amendment issue, but it does inform our society's stance of this issue. Freedom of expression is the backbone of what our nation stands for, and is of course and as should be obvious, inherently an issue of relativeness.
It's not a first amendment issue, but it's somehow has to have something to do with the foundation of our 1st amendment. Check.
And no one's even stating that Noah doesn't have freedom of expression to express himself in a disrespectful and inappropriate manner.
But self expression isn't even the backbone of this country, the Bill of Rights are actually centered around insuring an abusive government doesn't abridge that or any other rights. And the judicial system gets to spend it's time deciding for all of us what's the legal limit for that expression. Sounds pretty overarchingly objective to me.
jrodmc wrote:What if Noah took a shit on the West Point flag? What if he decided to throw what he picks out of his toes at the colonel during the dinner?
Knickoftime wrote:He did neither of those things. So now you're going to deal from the bottom of the 'slippery slope' deck?
Why, are any of those things not open to subjective definitions?
jrodmc wrote:West Point decided Noah's action was inappropriate.
Knickoftime wrote:As is THEIR prerogative to 'decide' to hold that opinion. But as we've established, West Point speaks for West Point, they don't speak for Noah.
Or me. Or any of the number of your fellow Knicks fans who as this thread indicates, find nothing inappropriate about Noah's position.
So let me get this straight. You think that actions are defined by the value of the intentions behind them, not the actual action itself? The question isn't about Noah's position (anti-war, anti-violence against kids) it's about how he decided to express it at this particular time and whether or not that was disrespectful and inappropriate to West Point and the cadets. What if Noah didn't go to dinner because angels told him not to? What if Noah didn't go to dinner because he hates the idea of LGBT's in the Army, or opening the draft to women? What if Noah didn't go to the dinner because he was busy trying to shut down Planned Parenthood? Still hold the same feelings about the relevance of his action to his genuine Ahmuhrican rights?
jrodmc wrote:Anyone with a brain that can possibly understand the incoherence of saying there are no objective realities is a little tough to have a meaningful conversation with.
Knickoftime wrote:I'm not at all surprised you'd have difficulty communicating with someone who doesn't share a subjective opinion that you personally regard as an objective reality. Some things explain themselves.But as it stands, you've done nothing to actually support it being a objective reality, you've only made the claim, which to paraphrase you, anyone with a brain stem can do.
I'm really just wondering, what is an objective reality in your world? Do they exist? And if they did, how would you know?