MWil23 Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 37 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said: Down in New Orleans, it's practically sacrilegious to not have a large top shelf margarita from Superior in your cup holder at all times. Everyone knows the cup and exactly what it is. Nobody says a word though. While it made for some entertaining law classes when you walk in and see a bunch of classmates AND the professor with one.....it makes you wonder what the hell people are thinking. I read this to the tune of “It’s 5 o’clock somewhere” in my mind. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjon1990 Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 43 minutes ago, MWil23 said: I read this to the tune of “It’s 5 o’clock somewhere” in my mind. It's always 5 o'clock in the Big Easy, that's for sure. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 18 hours ago, Chiefer said: What an idiot. Like can we just have one good WR that’s not completely stupid? Is that too much to ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeotheLion Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 8 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said: That is the most asinine policy I can think of lol It sounds crazy but the driver can't be drinking so I'm not sure why it's that bad other than it obviously doesn't encourage good behavior. It's really not that much different then serving drinks on an airplane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp0k2 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 10 minutes ago, LeotheLion said: It sounds crazy but the driver can't be drinking so I'm not sure why it's that bad other than it obviously doesn't encourage good behavior. It's really not that much different then serving drinks on an airplane. Other than the passengers on an airplane not sitting within arm's reach of the pilots and being able to hand him/her a drink with ease, sure, it's not different at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeotheLion Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 6 minutes ago, cp0k2 said: Other than the passengers on an airplane not sitting within arm's reach of the pilots and being able to hand him/her a drink with ease, sure, it's not different at all... I don't know what this means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp0k2 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 2 hours ago, LeotheLion said: I don't know what this means. It means that serving alcohol to passengers on an airplane is nothing at all like allowing passengers in an automobile to have open alcoholic beverages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 22 hours ago, big_palooka said: You can work. Plenty of jobs out there. You shouldn't get the luxury of an NFL job that pays you millions when you've shown you're not responsible enough to handle it. Obviously speaking with a lot of hyperbole here. But the whole thing feels like a middle finger to the people. Guy puts the life of a women and her 4 year old child at risk. Not even man enough to stay on scene and be accountable. And yet, he'll continue collecting life altering money because he's good at playing a game. Feels messed up. Every job is a privilege to have. You have no right to any given job. Treating a janitor as different than an NFL player just because of money makes no sense and doing so would be the real middle finger to people, telling them their job isn't worth less morally than a higher paying job. We have a system to punish individuals. If you don't think it does enough then change that. But once the system has said you've been punished enough then there is no reason to further say but you don't deserve to do the job you can do because we think you'd earn too much (by the way where is the line on that? What is too much?) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 21 minutes ago, mse326 said: Every job is a privilege to have. You have no right to any given job. Treating a janitor as different than an NFL player just because of money makes no sense and doing so would be the real middle finger to people, telling them their job isn't worth less morally than a higher paying job. We have a system to punish individuals. If you don't think it does enough then change that. But once the system has said you've been punished enough then there is no reason to further say but you don't deserve to do the job you can do because we think you'd earn too much (by the way where is the line on that? What is too much?) "Playing in the NFL isn't a job. It's an opportunity." - Herman Edwards I don't agree with this view because we HAVE seen players with the ability to contribute blacklisted due to "off-field issues" (Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, Colin Kaepernick) so there IS a line that can't be crossed, a line that will cost you your opportunity. Some are warranted and some aren't. The issue here is that line is largely subjective, highly influenced by public perception and inconsistent to everyone - including those who are responsible for passing judgement. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamq Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 7 hours ago, LeotheLion said: It sounds crazy but the driver can't be drinking so I'm not sure why it's that bad other than it obviously doesn't encourage good behavior. It's really not that much different then serving drinks on an airplane. Yeah I can see why it sounds insane to people who haven't lived in Missouri... but if you get pulled over & someone in the car is drinking, the cop is going to breathalyze that driver. Sure they need probable cause, but cops will always find a reason or make one up and justify their actions later 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeotheLion Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 6 hours ago, cp0k2 said: It means that serving alcohol to passengers on an airplane is nothing at all like allowing passengers in an automobile to have open alcoholic beverages. Lol nothing alike? Both are passengers and both have little impact on the safety of the travel. Quite a leap of an analogy. Someone drunk can be sitting in the passenger seat (I assume in every state). I really don't see how if that person is actively drinking or not that it would possibly matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 3 hours ago, ET80 said: "Playing in the NFL isn't a job. It's an opportunity." - Herman Edwards I don't agree with this view because we HAVE seen players with the ability to contribute blacklisted due to "off-field issues" (Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, Colin Kaepernick) so there IS a line that can't be crossed, a line that will cost you your opportunity. Some are warranted and some aren't. The issue here is that line is largely subjective, highly influenced by public perception and inconsistent to everyone - including those who are responsible for passing judgement. Colin Kaepernick is obviously a controversial one, so I'll give you that to a degree. Though he threatened legal action and reached a settlement so the NFL could avoid a public collusion case about blacklisting him, and Kaep has certainly done fine for himself as a public figure since then. But, Ray Rice got a settlement from the Ravens for precisely this. He argued wrongful termination, that he was basically punished by the league twice for the same offense, and the Ravens settled. Greg Hardy still got an $11M contract from the Cowboys and has had a full career in another sport since his incident. So your examples are one guy who wasn't blacklisted in Hardy, and two guys who got themselves confidential financial settlements with the league precisely because they were blacklisted by the league beyond the legal and NFL rulebook repercussions of whatever they did. The official ruling on these cases has basically been that the NFL can't be blacklisting these players beyond official action by the league in the form of suspensions, the commissioner's list, etc. It's just not always provable that that's what occurred. But I think mse's point is more that if we say hey, that scumbag was drag racing, he's not a deserving enough of a person to be an NFL player, he should have to be a janitor or a construction worker or delivery driver or whatever instead, it's not only putting NFL players on a pedestal, but implying from a societal perspective that "regular" workers are basically inferior, and those jobs can be staffed by all the people we think aren't good enough people. Which just has terrible implications for society as a whole. If the legal system does it's work, and the NFL does it's job in terms of fines/suspensions/actual legitimate punishments, the people were punished for their actions, and we then still say that that person doesn't deserve to have that job, what are we saying about the job we then do allow them to have? You're either not allowing them to have any job, which just prohibits rehabilitation and a return to being a functional member of society, or you're saying some jobs are too good for people like this, which implies a tiered society based on profession. We're basically suggesting that getting a normal job is part of the punishment. So are the rest of us already being punished, then? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 25 minutes ago, LeotheLion said: Lol nothing alike? Both are passengers and both have little impact on the safety of the travel. Quite a leap of an analogy. Someone drunk can be sitting in the passenger seat (I assume in every state). I really don't see how if that person is actively drinking or not that it would possibly matter. I would imagine the concern about a law like that would be the ease with which the driver can be drinking and just give it to his buddy in the passenger seat and say it was his passenger's drink all along when they get pulled over. Not being able to have an open container in a moving vehicle at all leaves less room for doubt in that scenario. It's just a cleaner law from an interpretation and implementation perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjon1990 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) 7 hours ago, mse326 said: Every job is a privilege to have. You have no right to any given job. Treating a janitor as different than an NFL player just because of money makes no sense and doing so would be the real middle finger to people, telling them their job isn't worth less morally than a higher paying job. We have a system to punish individuals. If you don't think it does enough then change that. But once the system has said you've been punished enough then there is no reason to further say but you don't deserve to do the job you can do because we think you'd earn too much (by the way where is the line on that? What is too much?) Um....what? We absolutely do do this already. Hate to break it to you, but classism and employment elitism is alive and well. And with regards to the famous amongst us, the middle finger is already being given. They are only famous because of their job, and it's not even a secret that rich, famous people get far more leniency from the courts you're assuming actually treat us all as equal individuals. Edited April 3 by ronjon1990 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 On 4/1/2024 at 9:19 AM, Forge said: He wouldn't be the first person to kill someone and come back He could even make the Hall of Fame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.