If they use an actual live falcon then it would offend PETA.

 

http://www.peta.org/campaigns/schoolmascot.asp

 

 

I'm with rockmom on this one. Intent is crucial. If the intent is racially motivated then it is taunting and should not be allowed. If they wave the flag at all events regardless of the ethnicity of the opposing players then I don't have a problem with waving the flag.

Intents rear end . Are you a member of the thought police ?

In theory intent would be difficult to infer but in practice I believe it would be fairly simple. How long have they been in the practice of waving the flag? Do they wave the flag at all events? Do they wave the flag at events where no African-Americans are on the opposing team? Do they wave the flag with as much energy when an African-America player is taking a foul shot as another player? Is it a regular occurence to hear racial epitaphs coming from the stands when they wave the flag? These are all easily answerable questions by those who attend those sporting events on a regular basis.

You can't be serious.:sleep:

I thought about just that today. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Jackson does not become involved in all of this.

 

Scooterbob, I'll say that I think that you are dead on on your thinking about this particular subject.

 

Slavery was a horrible, horrible thing that I hope never gets repeated, but a thing that never, ever gets mentioned is that all of the slaves that were brought to America were rounded up, captured and sold to the slave traders by their own people, or rival tribesmen.

 

I can't imagine in what way you think that is appropriate or relevant.

I can't imagine in what way you think that is appropriate or relevant.

Only that it is not totally a white man vs. a black man issue and that is what it always is referred to. I just think that this whole issue is being made into something that it is really not.Yes there was guilt in part of the slave owners and traders but there was also guilt due to greed on the part of those who sold and captured their own people. The bottom line on slavery is that it's roots are based more on the line of greed and financial windfalls than it is about race. Just wanting to point that out is all. If you feel irrelevance to my statement then feel free to ignore it.

 

I personally dont think that the Allen Central folks are guilty of what this deal is being blown up to be at all. I really dont think that there was racial intentions on anything concerning the flag at all in this particular instance.Ive been around Allen Central and it's people since the schools inception in the early 70's. It's possible that it could or has happened at other places , but I dont think so here.

 

Let me ask you this. Are you familiar with anything concerning Ned Pillersdorf at all ?

I can't imagine in what way you think that is appropriate or relevant.

 

Actually, TB, firebird's observations, unlike most of yours, are quite relevant. This is still a country based on established laws and not on the whim of those who may presently be wearing their feelings on their sleeves. Of course, with much of the whining that takes place in the present day, one would wonder where we are headed. On the other hand, I believe I opined about our direction in an earlier post.

The thread concerns whether or not a school should have to play a basketball game in an environment in which they deem to have a racial undertone - not who is to blame for the unfortunate institution of slavery. The comment that I pointed out was neither about the aforementioned topic, nor was it in good taste.

 

I am all for the first amendment. As a college professor of mine once pointed out, "Just because the first amendment grants you the right speek freely, doesn't mean that you always should."

The thread concerns whether or not a school should have to play a basketball game in an environment in which they deem to have a racial undertone - not who is to blame for the unfortunate institution of slavery. The comment that I pointed out was neither about the aforementioned topic, nor was it in good taste.

 

I am all for the first amendment. As a college professor of mine once pointed out, "Just because the first amendment grants you the right speek freely, doesn't mean that you always should."

 

Not surprisingly, TB, you have completely missed the issue at hand. No one is remotely forcing TDS to play the game. The game itself is a nonissue.

 

The issue is whether or not a legal entity (corporate or human) should be able to force another legal entity (corporate or human) to alter its philosophy merely to pacify the legal entity which claims to be offended by the actions of the first legal entity. There is no evidence and, at least to this point, no claim by the accuser, TDS, that it has suffered any damage whatsoever from the acts of AC.

 

Further, there is compelling evidence that TDS was fully aware of AC's symbols and name long before it entered into the contract for the game.TDS was on notice and any alleged damage suffered by it is, in reality, self-inflicted.

 

In the legal world, TDS has no issue. In the unfortunate world of political correctness and "everyone is a victim", the result may be different.

 

Let's just say that TDS's "handlers" get their way. How is TDS benefitted?

I expect no answer to that question since you supporters of Pillersdorf, et als. haven't answered any of the previous questions posed by posters. Of course, you have no legitimate answers.

Not surprisingly, TB, you have completely missed the issue at hand. No one is remotely forcing TDS to play the game. The game itself is a nonissue.

 

The issue is whether or not a legal entity (corporate or human) should be able to force another legal entity (corporate or human) to alter its philosophy merely to pacify the legal entity which claims to be offended by the actions of the first legal entity. There is no evidence and, at least to this point, no claim by the accuser, TDS, that it has suffered any damage whatsoever from the acts of AC.

 

Further, there is compelling evidence that TDS was fully aware of AC's symbols and name long before it entered into the contract for the game.TDS was on notice and any alleged damage suffered by it is, in reality, self-inflicted.

 

In the legal world, TDS has no issue. In the unfortunate world of political correctness and "everyone is a victim", the result may be different.

 

Let's just say that TDS's "handlers" get their way. How is TDS benefitted?

I expect no answer to that question since you supporters of Pillersdorf, et als. haven't answered any of the previous questions posed by posters. Of course, you have no legitimate answers.

 

How is it that you feel as though you know me well enough to make a comment as such? I am fairly confident that you do not know me at all. I could make several assumptions about you, based on what you have said in this thread, but refrain from doing so.

 

What is the David School and its administrator (the ones that you distastefull label as their "handlers") asking for? I could not find a reference in either article that they are asking for anything other than informing Allen Central that they would be boycotting a game.

How is it that you feel as though you know me well enough to make a comment as such? I am fairly confident that you do not know me at all. I could make several assumptions about you, based on what you have said in this thread, but refrain from doing so.

 

What is the David School and its administrator (the ones that you distastefull label as their "handlers") asking for? I could not find a reference in either article that they are asking for anything other than informing Allen Central that they would be boycotting a game.

 

My conclusion, TB, is based strictly upon what I have read in your posts on this issue. That is quite sufficient to indicate that your knowledge of legal issues, the laws of our land and how those laws are interpreted and applied is not well developed.

 

If the administrator of TDS merely wanted to cancel the game, he could have done so using the methods used by our other schools wishing to cancel a game. That would not have required consulting the civil rights group in Louisville, the AP, CNN, and various other media outlets within the Commonwealth. No, TB, the motive had little to do with a basketball game cancellation and you know it.

 

In an essay written, I believe. by former president and former chief justice, William Howard Taft, Chief Justice Taft stated that one who debates with facts, logic, and reason should never do so with one who relies on emotion. Mr. Taft stated that this is true because one who relies on emotion is oblivious to facts, displays no logical thesis, and is entirely without reason. I have always considered Chief Justice Taft to be a wise man. I will heed his advice and recommend that a benevolent moderator close this thread.

My conclusion, TB, is based strictly upon what I have read in your posts on this issue. That is quite sufficient to indicate that your knowledge of legal issues, the laws of our land and how those laws are interpreted and applied is not well developed.

 

If the administrator of TDS merely wanted to cancel the game, he could have done so using the methods used by our other schools wishing to cancel a game. That would not have required consulting the civil rights group in Louisville, the AP, CNN, and various other media outlets within the Commonwealth. No, TB, the motive had little to do with a basketball game cancellation and you know it.

 

In an essay written, I believe. by former president and former chief justice, William Howard Taft, Chief Justice Taft stated that one who debates with facts, logic, and reason should never do so with one who relies on emotion. Mr. Taft stated that this is true because one who relies on emotion is oblivious to facts, displays no logical thesis, and is entirely without reason. I have always considered Chief Justice Taft to be a wise man. I will heed his advice and recommend that a benevolent moderator close this thread.

 

You make so many assumptions that it is astounding.

 

Rather than ask a moderator to close the thread, you may simply choose not to respond. That way those of us that are not worthy of your vastly superior knowledge of the law can continue to discuss the issue at hand if we so choose.

This discussion can and will remain open as long as the personal jabs are left out. It they aren't, the thread will be closed and any other action deemed necessary will be taken.

Prejudice is not illegal, but it is also not (officially) tollerated in public schools.

 

 

 

As to scooterbob's point that because they are the Rebels, they obviously use the Confederate Flag, it just doesn't follow. I live a few blocks from a public high school, Atherton, and their nickname is the Rebels... and they CERTAINLY have no affiliation with the Confederate Flag.

Prejudice is not illegal, but it is also not (officially) tollerated in public schools.

 

 

 

As to scooterbob's point that because they are the Rebels, they obviously use the Confederate Flag, it just doesn't follow. I live a few blocks from a public high school, Atherton, and their nickname is the Rebels... and they CERTAINLY have no affiliation with the Confederate Flag.

 

This thread is an exercise in futility. However, I must point out to 02Ram54 that I never even insinuated that, because AC is called the Rebels, that they "obviously use the Confederate flag". Please quote correctly. I would also question how you concluded that "prejudice" is necessarily a part of this matter. There is no actual evidence of that other than the opinions of a couple of posters who have prejudged the matter. Of course, by definition, their prejudging is, in and of itself, evidence of prejudice on their part. Some adherence to actual facts would truly help this thread. Nonetheless it is futile.

I would stress to anyone who does have opinions concerning any of the discussed matter up to this point, that you probably should take a little time to research Ned Pillersdorf. You may still have your opinions , but you may find out that they either may not be as strong, or, you may in fact, alter your opinions altogether. You absolutely have to know a little about the individual who is the motivator behind this whole ordeal to even begin to form any impression or conclusion of what is actually going on.

 

The issue is whether or not a legal entity (corporate or human) should be able to force another legal entity (corporate or human) to alter its philosophy merely to pacify the legal entity which claims to be offended by the actions of the first legal entity. .

 

No one, for the most part, is arguing anything to do with law. Its simply about doing what many feel is right.

 

Happens all the time. Churches do it all the time. Businesses make such decisions constantly.

 

Its not a new or difficult concept to follow.