+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 91
  1. #41
    Quote 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.

  2. #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?

  3. #43
    All-Pro Rudyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Trap house
    Posts
    32,281
    Quote 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.

  4. #44
    Quote 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?

  5. #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.

  6. #46
    Did NWA have to change their name or lose their trademark rights?

    How about Three Six Mafia?

  7. #47
    Veteran BronxBomberBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Suffolk County
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Bing Crosby View Post
    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.




    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.



    I agree with most of what you said, Bing, with the exception that Snyder's property and his rights are being "violated".

    It's a friggin nickname of his NFL football team, that has received public tax paying funding for his private property football team to play in. If you're going to accept public money for your brand new, state of the art, football stadium, then you better not offend anybody in the American public... That means anybody, no matter how small the group is, or how unimportant that group is to "you" personally.

    "A vocal minority does not have the right to destroy an individual's property rights they don't like the trademarked ideas or brands."

    DESTROY??? How is it being destroyed? Synder is going to make a ton of money, if and when the fan base has to buy new merchandise!!! You're blowing this way out of proportion. No way in hell is this stand off (by Snyder) "destroying" Synder's brand!

    By the way, was there an uproar when St John's changed their nickname from the "Red-Men', to the "Red-Storm"? Not in the least!!!

    So please spare me with this drama filled diatribe about government dictatorship, and Sydner being a victim here.

    It's a friggin nickname. Just change it already so we can stop talking about this!!!



    The Drive for Super Bowl Championship #5!!!

  8. #48
    Veteran BronxBomberBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Suffolk County
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudyy View Post
    you have gone to a whole new level of stupid.

    Agreed..



    The Drive for Super Bowl Championship #5!!!

  9. #49
    Veteran BronxBomberBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Suffolk County
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by MagillasMango View Post
    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.

    Oh really? Which Amendment? I'm dying to know.

    Yes, he does maintain his "treasured racist trademark" while it's under appeal.

    FREE DANNY!!! FREE DANNY!!!



    The Drive for Super Bowl Championship #5!!!

  10. #50
    It's actually quite easy for Snyder to end this whole fiasco without having to actually change the name. He can change the mascot to Redskin potatoes and just use the helmet with the R logo or the logo that spells out Redskins.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts