The Just Bleed Myth.

[yookfarb]

TS has a point.

Effective and efficient technique causes "bleeding" and violence, many of the most renowned "point fighters" ala Cruz have very inefficient and unorthodox technique.

 

[Wayweary]

Well done for finding a picture of a couple of Native American who support the Redskins.

Here's a study suggesting that 67% of Native Americans find the name racist: http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

Here's the problem with your hilariously defective argument 'your feelings do not assign meaning to my intentions.' Your intentions do not simply occur and cease forever. In the case of naming a team, and keeping the name- This is in all respects a continuing action. Before such a time as you are aware that your actions are offensive, you could purport to have 'clean' intentions. Even honourable intentions.

However, at each juncture where you receive new information, and you continue the original act, you are acting with new intentions. Your original intentions ARE NOW irrelevant. These new intentions in this case would be "I intend to continue my traditions, at the expense of your offence." As you correctly stated, this makes you an asshole.

Someone being offended does not necessarily mean that you are obligated to change your actions to spare their feelings.

 

[bigeastgi43]

You are angry at me because you think I am disrespectful of Native Americans.

Yet you have taken and repeatedly defended the position that Native Americans who participate in Redskins events are jackasses. You maintain this view even when shown that these particular Native Americans are amongst the most respected war heros in the US, a reputation that cannot be separated from their Navajo identity.

Spoiler

You should read up on the subject. Doris Paul's book The Navajo Code Talkers was the best, although Collins' The Windtalkers is more popular and cheaply available. The movie based on that book sucked imo.

You are the only person in the thread actually being directly disrespectful of any Native Americans. The irony seems lost on you, but please continue explaining why you think they are jackasses, because some of us find your lack of self-awareness regarding your own hypocrisy comical.

first of all, you ARE being disrespectful to native americans

second im being disrespectful towards individuals who think redskins isnt disrespectful and a racist slur(thats you too). 4 of them happen to be native american, which makes them even bigger jackasses. the fact that someone is a vet or war hero doesnt hide stupidity

 

[A Muse of Fire]

I I simply do not want to live in a society where the feelings of some are protected by impinging on the rights of others.

How important is that to you though? If there a group of indigenous people disrupted a football game and occupied the offices of the NFL in protest what would you do?

Would you attend a counter protest? This is the sort of thing people get in fist fights over.

At a certain point you gotta ask you self if you want to get involved. It probably better to be polite than make people angry.

 

[bigeastgi43]

Ooh. Burn. I am a bit disappointed you did not find a way to invoke Hitler, but NAMBLA is not bad as far argument ad absurdem goes.

Just to be clear are you arguing that siding with a minority view is inherently dumb and similar to being a member of NAMBLA? Because I cannot find another way to read your remarks.

yes i equate NAMBLA with the redskin thoughts. being the world is telling you its wrong and you dont give a fuck.

 

[Wayweary]

When you posted the picture of the Navajo soldiers, you seemed like you were desperately fishing for evidence to support a claim. This is a most common mark of those who have taken a stance on the issue long before you heard any substantive facts about it. I suggest to you that this is a mindless way to live.

We already do judge the intent of others by subjective reactions of others. It's a massive and incredibly important part of trial by jury.

Implying that trials are anything but an imperfect construct that serves at best the pragmatic purpose of making a show of the law being respected, to introduce some level of risk to breaking laws to discourage criminal behavior, and to set up a third party to settle disputes. Ideally, juries are supposed to only enforce the law. They are supposed to be dispassionate in that pursuit. In practice, that will basically never happen. When intent is required to be judged, juries can at best make an educated guess. It isn't a perfect system and it should not stand as some sort of model for how society should be run on a grand scale.

Oh look, civilisation hasn't devolved into the scenario you outlined. What a surprise. That place you say you don't want to live in? This place where the rights of some are impinged on by the feelings of others- You already live there. This place existed for hundreds of years before you were born, and it will exist long after you're gone.

It's a spectrum. You could take it as far as having thought police, conceivably, if you try to enforce a dominant ideology on everyone to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, if someone has the obvious intent to cause emotional harm by, for instance, hurling racial epithets at them and putting up burning crosses in front of their house, that is another matter. Just because you have to consider the feelings of the public to some extent does not mean you pick a corner solution that gives no protection to freedom of thought and expression.

You're laughing at the term oblique intent and as a result I'm laughing at you. You sound ignorant. You personally don't have oblique intent in this situation. You don't have a say. You're not responsible for naming the team or keeping the team name. The team's ownership / management DO have oblique intent.

An education for you:

"Oblique intent: a person has oblique intent when the event is a natural consequence of a voluntary act and they foresee it as such. The 'natural consequence' definition was replaced in R v Woollin with the 'virtually certain' test. A person is now held to intend a consequence (obliquely) when that consequence is a virtually certain consequence of their action, and they knew it to be a virtually certain consequence. The first leg of this test has been condemned as unnecessary:[2] a person should be held as intending a consequence if (s)he believed it to be a virtually certain consequence, regardless of whether it was in fact virtually certain."

This approach is lifted from English Law (American Law has a piece-meal equivalent), but it is perfectly applicable to the general concept of culpability and accountability. If you can't handle this approach to accountability, I call you a fool who looks to recklessness and feigned ignorance as excuses for wrong-doing.

You can obfuscate your stance as much as you like, but the basic summary of what you believe is "I don't care if I offend people as much as I care about some stupid sports tradition. If they're offended, it's either their fault, or it's just too bad."

The fact that you clearly feel this way makes you an asshole. The fact that you're trying to pretend that you still give even the slightest shit about the people who this offends or what's good for society makes you a delusion asshole.

There is a very big difference between something you cause as a natural consequence of your actions and having a consequence for which you are not directly responsible imposed on you. If someone feels offended by the fact that I don't believe in God, for instance, or that I don't sing along to the national anthem or any number of things, that offence is based on their attitudes, even if I am certain that my actions will "cause" such a reaction. That does not entail that I am responsible for that offence and should be held accountable. The beliefs of that individual is responsible. No one has the right to not be offended because that would stand in direct opposition to any form of free expression.

 

[TheonGreyJoy**]

Check points of a Just Bleed fan

- sees no value and does not understand that fights are equal parts offense and defense, for the skilled fighters. Gets mad when a striker is shut down by an opponents great counter fighting game. Says stuff like Fighter X ran from Rampage or Diaz because they refused to stand still and let them hit them.

- hates when two evenly matched top opponents fight where technical battles for inches and position matter and instead prefers mismatch fights where top guys fight over matched guys resulting in a highlight finish

- boos pretty much all grappling that does not result in a finish even when there are constant back and forths and progression beyond guard and to sub attempts, etc. after the fact all that matters to them is the result. was there a finish? NO...Boring!

 

[flanellograf]

...

 

[Thai Otoshi]

What is this blasphemy?

 

[SgtElias]

Implying that trials are anything but an imperfect construct that serves at best the pragmatic purpose of making a show of the law being respected, to introduce some level of risk to breaking laws to discourage criminal behavior, and to set up a third party to settle disputes. Ideally, juries are supposed to only enforce the law. They are supposed to be dispassionate in that pursuit. In practice, that will basically never happen. When intent is required to be judged, juries can at best make an educated guess. It isn't a perfect system and it should not stand as some sort of model for how society should be run on a grand scale.



It's a spectrum. You could take it as far as having thought police, conceivably, if you try to enforce a dominant ideology on everyone to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, if someone has the obvious intent to cause emotional harm by, for instance, hurling racial epithets at them and putting up burning crosses in front of their house, that is another matter. Just because you have to consider the feelings of the public to some extent does not mean you pick a corner solution that gives no protection to freedom of thought and expression.




There is a very big difference between something you cause as a natural consequence of your actions and having a consequence for which you are not directly responsible imposed on you. If someone feels offended by the fact that I don't believe in God, for instance, or that I don't sing along to the national anthem or any number of things, that offence is based on their attitudes, even if I am certain that my actions will "cause" such a reaction. That does not entail that I am responsible for that offence and should be held accountable. The beliefs of that individual is responsible. No one has the right to not be offended because that would stand in direct opposition to any form of free expression.

My point is the one I made, not the one you seem interesting in engaging me on. I said that this sort of judgment is something which occurs frequently. "It isn't a perfect system." Really? Is that the best you have to offer this particular debate? Do you think the concept of oblique intent belongs in law or not? Does it make sense to you, or not? If you have some alternative to suggest, I'd love to hear it. Or you could just say something like "But they can't really KNOW. They have emotions..." Yes, quite. Useful, rousing stuff.

This next point was the really amusing part of your post. You talk about it being a spectrum. Then just like the Ice Cold fan, you decide to spend your time focusing on the extremes. Really? Is changing a logo the collapse of freedom? We're at the end of the spectrum, are we? We're close? No. And it's not a slippery slope. We've limited people's freedoms in this way in lots of countries and they haven't all skidded directly and inevitably towards fascism. We're not talking about thought police. We're talking a logo. Naturally, any opponent of this must talk about the extremes of a lack of freedom, lest we focus for a second on HOW TRIVIAL THE BENEFITS OF KEEPING THIS LOGO ARE.

And oh look, in the third point we're back to 'any form of freedom of expression.' Yes, let's keep it nice and general, shall we? Shall we also focus on the analogy you've given re: believing in god? Or maybe, just maybe, we can remember what we're talking about. A racially offensive and insensitive logo. If we can't, let's focus on your defective analogy. Not believing in god is not an action. Not singing along to the national anthem is not an action. It's an omission. There's an important distinction. Feel free to come up with a more appropriate analogy. In this new analogy, try to capture the essence and scope of the point we're actually discussing. So instead of one person not liking something one person is doing. How about something that affects a significant portion of 3 million people. Thanks.

 

[Thai Otoshi]

You would do well to heed the words of this humble prophet....

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/group.php?groupid=415

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2447221
http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2472003
http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2453035
http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2487085
http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2501739

 

[Vektor]

lol at the direction this thread took. A seamless transition from drunk guys punching themselves to a sociopolitical pissing contest. Holy shit

 

[Wayweary]

My point is the one I made, not the one you seem interesting in engaging me on. I said that this sort of judgment is something which occurs frequently. "It isn't a perfect system." Really? Is that the best you have to offer this particular debate? Do you think the concept of oblique intent belongs in law or not? Does it make sense to you, or not? If you have some alternative to suggest, I'd love to hear it. Or you could just say something like "But they can't really KNOW. They have emotions..." Yes, quite. Useful, rousing stuff.

The point is that sometimes knowing the outcome does not entail your ultimate responsibility. Isn't that apparent to you? If I know you are going to be enraged when I express my opinion, does that mean I am obligated not to express that opinion even thought there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so?

This next point was the really amusing part of your post. You talk about it being a spectrum. Then just like the Ice Cold fan, you decide to spend your time focusing on the extremes. Really? Is changing a logo the collapse of freedom?

You have to draw a line somewhere. You don't get to act like there is no competing interest in your desire to assuage the feelings of the masses, though.

We're at the end of the spectrum, are we? We're close? No.

I never said or implied that we were. Obviously, the redskins have not been forced by the weight of law to change their logo, now have they? There is still freedom of expression in this country, correct?

And it's not a slippery slope. We've limited people's freedoms in this way in lots of countries and they haven't all skidded directly and inevitably towards fascism.

Maybe that's because we've taken an even-handed approach. Maybe every one of those decisions was discussed with the points that I am making brought up and maybe those concerns won out in some cases, which is why we maintain the freedoms that we do.

We're not talking about thought police. We're talking a logo. Naturally, any opponent of this must talk about the extremes of a lack of freedom, lest we focus for a second on HOW TRIVIAL THE BENEFITS OF KEEPING THIS LOGO ARE.

It may seem trivial to you, but you aren't the ultimate arbiter. I think the line needs to be draw objectively, not based entirely on the subjective concerns of the offended. If we set that as a precedent, we aren't just talking about this logo, we are talking about any number of things. What happens when an art exhibit is offensive? Shall we censor that too? After all, what is the value of a few artistic types appreciating a single piece compared to the outrage of thousands or even millions?

And oh look, in the third point we're back to 'any form of freedom of expression.' Yes, let's keep it nice and general, shall we? Shall we also focus on the analogy you've given re: believing in god? Or maybe, just maybe, we can remember what we're talking about. A racially offensive and insensitive logo.
If we can't, let's focus on your defective analogy. Not believing in god is not an action. Not singing along to the national anthem is not an action. It's an omission.

That's a distinction without a difference. What if the national anthem starts playing and I actually sit down and get on my smartphone? That is an "action" so does that better suit your standards? If you prefer, though, the point would still stand if it was me being offended by someone else does those things that might make me feel offended. I don't have a right to forcibly influence their actions in that regard just because I get offended.

There's an important distinction. Feel free to come up with a more appropriate analogy. In this new analogy, try to capture the essence and scope of the point we're actually discussing. So instead of one person not liking something one person is doing. How about something that affects a significant portion of 3 million people. Thanks.

How does it actually affect them, though? It only affects them if they buy into the cult of PCness that is currently in vogue which is an ideology, and it isn't one that everyone should be forced to bow down to. Anytime someone waves around a redskins flag or wears a jersey, does that mean that they are acting in a racist manner in any objective sense? I don't think so. Racism is the belief that another race is inferior. Does the redskins logo or celtics logo say anything at all about Native Americans or decendents of the Celts? If so, what?

 

[lweiberg]

Cummins offering a sacrifice!

Hail!

 

[SgtElias]

The point is that sometimes knowing the outcome does not entail your ultimate responsibility. Isn't that apparent to you? If I know you are going to be enraged when I express my opinion, does that mean I am obligated not to express that opinion even thought there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so?

That's not my point. That's your point. My point was addressing the scope of intention. Your point is where responsibility lies in the case of feelings of offence. I have to say, I don't have much interest in debating that point with someone who sees being sensitive and thoughtful with regard to derogatory racial slurs as a 'cult of PCness which is currently in vogue.'

You have to draw a line somewhere. You don't get to act like there is no competing interest in your desire to assuage the feelings of the masses, though.

Of course the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Not here. Naturally you've avoided discussing this particular competing interest. Do tell me about it. Or you can again focus on the precedent it sets, because you realise how weak the competing interest is here.

Maybe that's because we've taken an even-handed approach. Maybe every one of those decisions was discussed with the points that I am making brought up and maybe those concerns won out in some cases, which is why we maintain the freedoms that we do.

Yes, and we view those who were on wrong side of many of the discussions as relics, fossils and uncivilised. You're fashioning yourself a bit of a champion of freedom now, aren't you? You think those freedom-preserving decisions were made on the basis of "It might lead to something bad one day." and "It's their fault if they're upset."? No.

It may seem trivial to you, but you aren't the ultimate arbiter. I think the line needs to be draw objectively, not based entirely on the subjective concerns of the offended. If we set that as a precedent, we aren't just talking about this logo, we are talking about any number of things. What happens when an art exhibit is offensive? Shall we censor that too? After all, what is the value of a few artistic types appreciating a single piece compared to the outrage of thousands or even millions?

You really do enjoy defective analogies, and looking at the extremes, don't you? Perhaps, you are unable to talk about the point at hand, even when challenged because you too, see the logo as trivial. Would you like to share what "draw objectively" means here? It sounds a lot like "ask white people." As for your point about censoring art, again we already do, and civilisation has not collapsed (thanks to patriots like you, of course).

That's a distinction without a difference. What if the national anthem starts playing and I actually sit down and get on my smartphone? That is an "action" so does that better suit your standards? If you prefer, though, the point would still stand if it was me being offended by someone else does those things that might make me feel offended. I don't have a right to forcibly influence their actions in that regard just because I get offended.

Again, you revert to the analogy because you're unable to talk about the issue at hand. Crafting an extremely favourable analogy which does not reflect the point at hand is not a convincing way to argue a point.

How does it actually affect them, though? It only affects them if they buy into the cult of PCness that is currently in vogue which is an ideology, and it isn't one that everyone should be forced to bow down to. Anytime someone waves around a redskins flag or wears a jersey, does that mean that they are acting in a racist manner in any objective sense? I don't think so. Racism is the belief that another race is inferior. Does the redskins logo or celtics logo say anything at all about Native Americans or decendents of the Celts? If so, what?

If you don't know the answer to your first question in this paragraph, you've either lived a charmed life, or you're entirely deaf to mistreatment people different to you have suffered. This so-called cult isn't changing your country. It's a reflection of the change in your country. So you can feel free to taste it as a defeat, and I'll toast to it as progress.

 

[Megatronlee]

Hahahah yeah

 

[TheonGreyJoy**]

Ooh. Burn. I am a bit disappointed you did not find a way to invoke Hitler, but NAMBLA is not bad as far argument ad absurdem goes.

Just to be clear are you arguing that siding with a minority view is inherently dumb and similar to being a member of NAMBLA? Because I cannot find another way to read your remarks.

lol.

Because that is what you would have done right?

Shall I quote you invoking slavery in a debate about animal rights?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

lol.

Because that is what you would have done right?

Shall I quote you invoking slavery in a debate about animal rights?

I must admit I am a bit curious about what quote you have in which I invoke slavery in a debate on animal rights.

 

[Thrawn33]

Cummins offering a sacrifice!

Hail!

Praise be to JBG!

 

[MarceloTheRock]

Man, let's stop that bs, JUST BLEED!