OK, do you not know what a red herring is, or are you just determined to clown yourself? I wrote that response specifically to one poster who'd disagreed with the facts that you just said
.
I say he disagreed with the facts of it, because that's specifically what the post I'd made contained the claim about, which I quoted in the post you just responded to while claiming I was tossing out the herring rouge:
There's no red herring there. There's no straw man there. There's not "consider the source" there.
There's me stating facts, NFLMac disagreeing with facts, and now you calling a 100% on point response a red herring.
Let's consider us done discussing this issue, because you're getting crazier by the post.
Deus, I have read your posts for many years and have concluded that you are a lot brighter than the average poster out here but that you often use your brilliance to obfuscate and twist debates and divert them from the topic at hand; you also end up calling your opponents names and eliciting similar reactions from them (for which in my case I apologize) that bring more smoke and heat than light and reason to the discussion.
So, putting that to the side, whatever flaws you feel you may have detected in my earlier statements, which are beyond discernment at this point, please answer these questions; each question can be answered, "Yes" or "No", and then could be debated rationally once a base position is established.
First two questions:
Does the NFL have the right, as a private institution, to set standards of conduct for its members and players that go beyond what the law requires of them?
Does the NFL have the right, as a private institution, to impose penalties on its members or players who violate those standards?
If your answer to those question is "Yes," then there is a rational debate to be had about what is or is not reasonable. If your answer is "No," then we have a fundamental disagreement, which is probably not bridgeable.
Second two questions:
Does the NFL, as a mass marketing (including marketing directly to minors) entertainment and media enterprise, have an obligation to require that its members and players meet commonly accepted societal standards of behavior (what I have called "the mean" in other posts), acknowledging that those standards will be acceptable neither to those who feel that marketing to the public should be tightly regulated (the "nanny state" perspective) nor to those who feel that it should be constrained only by the willingness of a sponsor to support it (the "libertarian" perspective)?
Does the NFL's anti-trust exemption, which enables its owners to avoid significant tax liabilities, require that the League and its owners be held to a higher standard of awareness of and sensitivity to societal sensibilities and perspectives?
As above, if your answer to those questions is "Yes," then there is a rational debate to be had about what is or is not reasonable. If your answer is "No," then we have a fundamental disagreement, which is probably not bridgeable.