[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Noah Anti-War disses West Point Cadets.....
Author Thread
Knickoftime
Posts: 23204
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/5/2016  3:39 PM
jrodmc wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:So I guess anyone is free to be disrespectful in the good ole USA.

Yes.

They are.

Which is sort of the whole point of the good ole USA.

Psssst....don't bother reading the Declaration of Independence. Might blow up your whole "point of the good ole USA".

There is something in the Declaration of Independence that suggests U.S. citizens are NOT free to pursue happiness by expressing their views?

I must have forgotten the text. I'm open to being corrected by someone who has superior knowledge.

AUTOADVERT
Knickoftime
Posts: 23204
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/5/2016  4:42 PM
jrodmc wrote: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.

An invitation infers a choice. Without there being an option, then it is not in fact, an invitation.

He declined. Why he declined is his business. If he genuinely felt uncomfortable, even if such circumstances wouldn't make you or I uncomfortable, he is free to act his conscious.

Seems simply and innocuous. The argument requires you manufacture unnecessary indignation and question his motives and if his explanation is genuine in order not to be gibberish, which of course is why you go here...

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.

Not satisfied that he just views the issue differently then he, perhaps in a way that you just can't empathize with (which is hardly his problem), you need to question his motives.

And the answer to your question is of course, yes, it is a relative matter as to who you can pick to be subjectively disrespectful or inappropriate to, as well as a right.

It is also a relative matter as to how one personally defines 'disrespectful' and 'inappropriate', which as we've already established, is a notion you struggle with.

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.

You made it "fascinating" by mangling it ... spectacularly, in addition to misrepresenting Noah's position. He said he doesn't like war.

I believe Noah's position and actions (which btw, I wouldn't have personally mirrored) are a completely subjective matter AND are his right of conscience. I think the individual person or handful of person who defined West Point's position (which I also don't agree with) is a completely subjective matter and right of conscious.

I can accept Noah's position (which isn't mine) as genuinely-intended, and believe he has NO intentions to offend (which apparently, the Knicks organization has accepted as well). I'm not uncomfortable being disagreed with and don't need to invent an offense that isn't there to support my subjective viewpoint.

Which would makes one of us.

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.

Not until you understand those objective rights are subjective. In 1791 those rights were somewhat different, and apply to groups of people differently than they do now, which again, should be one of those self-defining things.

Whether or not those rights applied to woman and people of color (for the most obvious example) was based on the "wisdom" of the time, according to the very specific demographic empowered to define what our rights were, who have been improved upon over time.

People of conscious have attempted to change what is and is not a right, including attempts to make burning a flag NOT a right, just to pick a relevant example.

You SHOULD (though I'll make no assumptions) be aware intelligent people of conscious disagree on the wording (in context to the era) of how the 2nd amendment applies today - what was the INTENT, rather than debatable language, of the founding fathers.

The Constitution was crafted .... on purpose ... to be amended, if necessary or even if not if it reflected the will of the people. The founding fathers knew the will of the people define our rights and always will.

I can't hold your hand and explain to you if don't immediately recognize the implications of that. It's again, self-defining and you're completely missing it.

Why, are any of those things not open to subjective definitions?

Of course they are. Your should understand that by now.

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?

In the context of politely declining an invitation to dinner?

Yeah.

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?

Yes.

Am I taking crazy pills or have I not been perfectly clear about this?

My personal opinion of Noah would change, to give you the answer you're looking for but mixing up. My position on his actions, would not.

I'm not as easily offended as seemingly the direction of the world is going.

I'm really just wondering, what is an objective reality in your world? Do they exist? And if they did, how would you know?

Science.

And since I seem to have to explain it, I'm in no way saying there isn't value in subjective opinion. Plays a big role in science, in fact.

I just don't need to manufacture indignation over an innocuous circumstance and conflate my opinion with fact in order to feel better about my position.

jrodmc
Posts: 30601
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 11/24/2004
Member: #805
USA
10/6/2016  10:35 AM
Knickoftime wrote:
jrodmc wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:So I guess anyone is free to be disrespectful in the good ole USA.

Yes.

They are.

Which is sort of the whole point of the good ole USA.

Psssst....don't bother reading the Declaration of Independence. Might blow up your whole "point of the good ole USA".

There is something in the Declaration of Independence that suggests U.S. citizens are NOT free to pursue happiness by expressing their views?

I must have forgotten the text. I'm open to being corrected by someone who has superior knowledge.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

With your worldview based on subjectivity, how do you handle the suggestion that ANYONE can hold TRUTHS to be self-evident?
I'm interested in hearing the subjectivity of the whole "Creator endows" thing.

Including the subjectivity of the concept of disrespect.

You guys spend a lot of time commenting on the internet?
jrodmc
Posts: 30601
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 11/24/2004
Member: #805
USA
10/6/2016  10:37 AM
Knickoftime wrote:I just don't need to manufacture indignation over an innocuous circumstance and conflate my opinion with fact in order to feel better about my position.

Thanks, that's really all I need to know.
Peace.

You guys spend a lot of time commenting on the internet?
Knickoftime
Posts: 23204
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/6/2016  1:53 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/6/2016  2:28 PM
jrodmc wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
jrodmc wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:So I guess anyone is free to be disrespectful in the good ole USA.

Yes.

They are.

Which is sort of the whole point of the good ole USA.

Psssst....don't bother reading the Declaration of Independence. Might blow up your whole "point of the good ole USA".

There is something in the Declaration of Independence that suggests U.S. citizens are NOT free to pursue happiness by expressing their views?

I must have forgotten the text. I'm open to being corrected by someone who has superior knowledge.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

With your worldview based on subjectivity, how do you handle the suggestion that ANYONE can hold TRUTHS to be self-evident?

Handle?

There is nothing to handle.

Here's the full passage.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

But we know they didn't mean all men. They meant all white males.

The practical application of the Declaration of Independence, to alter or abolish destructive governments, and to institute new ones, was self-evidently only the provence of white men. It didn't become "self-evident" that these rights should be equally shared among blacks and women for 70 and 130 more years, respectively, following the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

So what does self-evident meant to you? Are you genuinely endorsing the original intention of the Declaration of Independence and the original rights granted by the bill of rights as objectively self-evident?

Really?

I'm interested in hearing the subjectivity of the whole "Creator endows" thing.

The existence of a creator or not is objective.

The belief in a creator is subjective.

Man, you ask obvious questions.

Noah Anti-War disses West Point Cadets.....

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.com All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.