Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Patent office cancels Redskins Trademark

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Flip Empty View Post
    In the current climate it's going to be impossible to move beyond something like this. They may win their appeal, but that isn't going to dissipate the negativity towards them one bit.

    What negativity? Other than the political grandstanding, I mean.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sarcasman View Post
      What negativity? Other than the political grandstanding, I mean.
      Hmm, the vocal minority I suppose. For some reason I thought Goodell had spoken out against the name... I guess not.

      Still, race-related issues don't tend to go away easy.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Flip Empty View Post
        Hmm, the vocal minority I suppose. For some reason I thought Goodell had spoken out against the name... I guess not.

        Still, race-related issues don't tend to go away easy.

        Certainly not when there are cameras and media around!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bing Crosby View Post
          They just denied him his right to his intellectual property, outside of his common law rights which I mentioned. They are trying to deny him the right to his trademarked brand. A right every citizen of the Republic has no matter the feelings people have of said trademark. As I said even a criminal organization such as the Hell's Angels, an organization that has been involved in murder, drug and gun trafficking, has a right to their property. Morality and personal feelings has nothing to do with it.

          Some feminist argue that pornography is an anti female construct that is used to sexualize women, and treat them as property of men. A patriarchal institution that treats women as mere objects.That doesn't stop Playboy, Penthouse, and other providers of pornographic material from having the rights to their names and brands. Because rights are not based on feelings.



          Their are plenty of trademarked ideas and symbols that people don't like. Some that people claim are hazardous to society. That doesn't change the fact that people have a right to those symbols and ideas. Their are members of the Hell's Angels club who have been convicted of rape. Doesn't mean that the club doesn't still own their death head symbol or colors. Further Snyder hasn't raped or killed anyone, in fact he has done nothing that would deny him his natural right to own property.



          The fact that the system is corrupted by government agencies who choose to give tax payer money to private citizens for economic development is another matter that has no bearing on this issue. If it did every citizen who went on a social welfare programs would have a certain amount of their rights curtailed based on the time they are on government assistance. Yet people on welfare still have the right to write books, and trademark brands and ideas. Their have been companies that were started by broke people in the past, and I'm sure their will be others in the future. For the record I'm against public funds being dedicated to any private institution, but again it has nothing to do with rights. Rights are not up for a vote. Rights are not a popularity contest, they exist on their own. That's why they are known as "natural rights", because nothing that is done changes the fact that they exist. Even when rights are denied as happened to many American Indians over the years doesn't change the fact that they had rights. Snyder has property rights, and they are being abused for political purposes. That's wrong no matter what form it takes. It isn't up to a debate about feelings.

          It's an arbitrary abuse based on political calculations.



          Offensive to whom? A vocal minority? Politicians who see an issue that they can make political hay out of and fill their coffers for upcoming elections? A name or factor being "offensive" to someone doesn't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to rights. The fact is you can look at trademarks that are still issued and allowed today that offend plenty of people. I'd list them out here now, but good taste restrains me at this moment.

          Furthermore my point about people being "offended" is that this sets the precedent that it only requires a vocal minority to overturn someones natural rights, which is wrong. People can make the cases with the names you listed, that private individuals are using those collective cultures in order to make their own private fortunes, something that many people consider wrong and would call it "cultural theft/ appropriation" for a capitalist cause. As I said their are people who consider pornography to be morally wrong, their are people who consider certain songs to be morally wrong, certain ideas to be morally wrong, certain books to be morally wrong. BOO HOO. People's views on moral issues has nothing to do with self evident rights.

          Which is what happens in the real world. Pornographers can trademark their name and brands. So can musicians no matter how offended people get about their music,lyrics, how they dress, or the themes of their songs. So can authors no matter how many people are offended by their work. Rights are not based on the level of offense the cause to people, and the way this has been handled by an over reaching federal bureaucracy in order to score political points is sickening, and I doubt the people who are cheering this idea now would be if the same principle of "offense" was applied to things that had a vocal minority against it.

          Finally if "redskins" annoys you to the point where you believe you have the duty to deny a fellow citizen the same right you have, I expect you to also begin demanding that that state of Oklahoma changes it name.



          Or is it simply the word "skin" that bothers you? If they were called the "Washing Redpeople" or "Washington Redmen" would you be fine with it?

          The case has yet to be made satisfactorily that Snyder's right should be denied. A criminal organization like the Hell's Angels who have take part in murder, rape, and trafficking of illegal contraband have rights, but Snyder shouldn't because it "offends" people who have ties to point scoring bureaucrats and politicians? Give me a break.


          Whew.... All this pent up anger over a "nickname". I hope you don't blow a gasket when they do "rightfully change" the "offensive" name of Washington's NFL team.

          Poor Danny Snyder.. Such an atrocity to occur against a private American citizen, and his billion dollar, cash cow property. Thank God what's happening to Snyder right now isn't happening to millions of other American citizens in this country.

          You give me a break!!!
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Flip Empty View Post
            In the current climate it's going to be impossible to move beyond something like this. They may win their appeal, but that isn't going to dissipate the negativity towards them one bit.
            Flip, I would argue that it's time someone took a stand on this. A small group within a small group finds a nickname offensive, oh well.
            I'm white and couldn't give a flyin' fark what kind of "white" slur you throw my way.

            This overly sensitive BS gets old on this one way street that racism is.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by STAR View Post

              This overly sensitive BS gets old on this one way street that racism is.



              My girlfriend is of Colombian descent, and she has a heavy spanish accent. After being in her life and witnessing what she has to deal with over the past five years, trust me. Racism today is alive and well, and is a TWO WAY street!!!


              If it's offensive to some, GET RID OF IT!!!
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #37
                BBB, racism will always be here. Someone doesn't like this or that, it' s just part of life that we see and you cope with it. Spanish speaking people see more of it today due to our southern boarder issue. Curious, how is racism a two way street? If your Caucasian, bombs away, people of color can throw that card at will from everything I've seen and heard

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by STAR View Post
                  BBB, racism will always be here. Someone doesn't like this or that, it' s just part of life that we see and you cope with it. Spanish speaking people see more of it today due to our southern boarder issue. Curious, how is racism a two way street? If your Caucasian, bombs away, people of color can throw that card at will from everything I've seen and heard



                  Just because racism will always be here, doesn't mean we have to tolerate it, and to have the attitude of "someone has to take a stand on this", and "this overly sensitive BS gets old on this one way street that racism is", doesn't help deter from the ugliness that racism is in the slightest.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by BronxBomberBlue View Post
                    Just because racism will always be here, doesn't mean we have to tolerate it, and to have the attitude of "someone has to take a stand on this", and "this overly sensitive BS gets old on this one way street that racism is", doesn't help deter from the ugliness that racism is in the slightest.
                    You and I don't have to like it, but we'll have to be tolerant of it, we as a society need to in order to coexist with the ignorant. Some would argue educate them, I don't have that much time.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by STAR View Post
                      You and I don't have to like it, but we'll have to be tolerant of it, we as a society need to in order to coexist with the ignorant. Some would argue educate them, I don't have that much time.


                      So why can't we have the same attitude with the name changing of the nickname, "Red-Skins"?
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by BronxBomberBlue View Post
                        Whew.... All this pent up anger over a "nickname". I hope you don't blow a gasket when they do "rightfully change" the "offensive" name of Washington's NFL team.
                        I'm not going to cry if the name is changed, because I don't care about the name in the least. What I have a problem with, which you seem to be missing the point of completely, is that we have a person's property rights being abused. If you don't understand the fact that this is an arbitrary politically motivated ruling that goes against the principles and rights that this country was founded on I can not help you. You have rights no matter what individuals or groups opinions are. You have the right to create, to build, and to market ideas in the market place and the Moral Orels of the world do not change that, no matter how much they cry or say their feelings are hurt.

                        For example as I tried to hint at, people have a right to watch pornography between consenting adults, and companies have a right to sell and prosper from it. They have a right to create brands and market from them. No matter what either the feminist movement, or the religious right, or any other group thinks of it. You also have a right to read books that people may find offensive, and the authors and companies have a right to prosper from their work and brands financially. People can listen to bands that sing songs some aspect of the population may despises, and can profit from it. Being offended does not give ANYONE the right to stop a person from trying to make a living. The Washington Redskin name has not killed anyone, it has not harmed anyone, it has not raped anyone. It's a brand name. Just like Playboy has a right to their brand, just like Marilyn Manson has a right to his name and brand, just like the Harry Potter novels have a right to it's name and brand. And the fact that their are groups who are against pornography, metal music, and positive depictions of witchcraft does not change that fact. Likewise just because a very small minority with a vocal voice connected to powerful political machinery does not change the fact the Dan Snyder has a right to his trademarks. Your rights, his rights, my rights, and everyone's rights exist whether a minority like it or not. And governmental abuse is not the way to go about it.

                        The way the system is suppose to work, is that if you don't like something you try to alter peoples opinions. You don't use the heavy hand of the state in order to impose your personal morality. That's what is wrong with some members of the religious right, the feminist movement, and the victim hood groups, who try to turn society to their way of thinking by using the corrosive power of state force.


                        Poor Danny Snyder.. Such an atrocity to occur against a private American citizen, and his billion dollar, cash cow property. Thank God what's happening to Snyder right now isn't happening to millions of other American citizens in this country.
                        Your ignorant sarcasm aside sir or madam, you are correct. I don't like Danny Snyder but he has the same rights as every other person does. I would argue every person has these fundamental rights world wide, but in particular yes in America. You have a right to property. So does Dan Snyder. It's not a matter of popularity or voting.

                        The same mentality you are arguing for right now, is the exact same mentality that was rightfully ridiculed when religious groups attempted to outlaw the Harry Potter series. A vocal minority does not have the right to destroy an individuals property rights just because they don't like the trademarked ideas or brands. That is not how the rule of law is suppose to work.

                        I have no problem with people trying to change Snyder's mind. Nor do I have problems with people putting market pressure on them or the NFL. I do have a problem with the government coming down on people's rights to score political points. This is not an area the government belongs in, and it is a disgrace to free individuals the world over that it would happen.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Are Minnesota Vikings going to have to change their name when it offends Americans of Nordic descent?

                          Are NY Giants going to have to change their name when abnormally tall people get offended by the name?
                          #80

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by MagillasMango View Post
                            Are Minnesota Vikings going to have to change their name when it offends Americans of Nordic descent?

                            Are NY Giants going to have to change their name when abnormally tall people get offended by the name?
                            you have gone to a whole new level of stupid.
                            Mood: WOOF!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Rudyy View Post
                              you have gone to a whole new level of stupid.
                              Coming from you that's supposed to be an insult?
                              #80

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Taking away Snyder ' s trademark rights in this situation may be borderline unconstitutional and he'll probably win on appeal. Until the appeal is settled, I think he still maintains the rights.
                                #80

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X