In defense of the owners

[Matt Moore]

Yeah I like him. I just find it funny complaining about rich people and what they do and don't do with their money, when he works for a corporation that pays people minimum wage to wear a Mickey Mouse head.

yeah, stick it ad hominem!

[Matt Moore]

you wear a mickey mouse hat

your argument is invalid

[Delhommey]

Rick Reilly is a hypocritical douche.

[twylyght]

yeah, stick it ad hominem!

You DID see the prior posting regarding Disney's ESPN holdings and the greed that THEY display, right? I believe the attack was regarding the hypocrisy of criticizing one corporation whilst ignoring the litany of comparables with one's own.

[Matt Moore]

You DID see the prior posting regarding Disney's ESPN holdings and the greed that THEY display, right? I believe the attack was regarding the hypocrisy of criticizing one corporation whilst ignoring the litany of comparables with one's own.

i did--its called ad hominem

[Matt Moore]

Even if the dude is a hypocrite douche, you still have to counter the argument made

come on now

[twylyght]

I just see the juxtaposition of those who criticize the players for being so rich when many of them don't make $1M in their whole NFL career.

Let's be honest. The owners are lying to you when they say the NFL is losing money.

While you may be saying that this article is a juxtaposition of how NFL owners criticize players for their salaries (though "criticize" is something that has not happened... this is merely a re-negotiation to get back to market value at this time), the clear intent is to paint NFL owners as apathetic and morally baseless beasts that would sooner eat your children than let go of a single cent of their earnings.

Let's be clear:

1) Ticket holders are no more part owners of an NFL team than hotel guests are owners of the chains they frequent

2) Players are no more owners of their respective NFL teams than vice presidents are owners of their respective banks

3) Making money does not inherently make one evil (though the ebb and tide of the media, Hollywood, and political tsunamis would have you believe otherwise in spite of their own "ill-begotten wealth")

But let's take those ridiculous notions and assume that they are true:

1) If ticket holders are part owners of NFL teams, can they hold multiple teams? If they sell their tickets, is that like renting out their business share? Should they be subject to corporate earnings' taxes for whatever profits they make?

2) If players are part owners of teams, do they sell and buy portions of their respective parts when they are traded/signed elsewhere? When they are no longer employed by any NFL team, do they sell their business portions back? Do they incur any risk for any investments made? How much of their salaries goes towards office personnel, media coverage, facilities upkeep, extended pensions, corporate taxes, etc to contribute to operating overhead?

3) If money inherently makes one evil, why not make it illegal? If there is a "golden mean" of money that someone can make before they start becoming evil, where is that line drawn? Who gets to make that determination? What else of value gets to be deemed evil and who gets to make the corrective actions on how to make things right?

If the real losers are the fans in all of this, then why do the fans keep going to games? Why do we continue to support such an inherently unfair product? The truth is that when the rubber meets the road, the fans HAVE decided and the market will forever be the one to make the determination of who thrives and who dies in this business. "Greed" is what drives everyone as the transfer of tender ultimately tells the tale of what motivates us as people. Money is simply the accepted placeholder for the means of exchange to make the determination of what is valued and what is not.

Hence, billionaires are just that because they have contributed substantially to bringing that which is of value to those that want it. If it weren't the case, then they wouldn't have so much of what everyone else has given them.

[twylyght]

i did--its called ad hominem

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem

ad ho·mi·nem

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument

If you'd like to point out just where Jangler failed to answer the argument, please do. Otherwise, I see him pointing out hypocrisy regarding an employee of Disney with its well-publicized "employee mis-treatment" criticizing the NFL and the near royal treatment of their players as opposed to many of their other employees.

If you can follow logic and nuance, then the reasoning is clear. If anything has been ad hominem is the is characterization of the wealthy.

[Matt Moore]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem

ad ho·mi·nem

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument

If you'd like to point out just where Jangler failed to answer the argument, please do. Otherwise, I see him pointing out hypocrisy regarding an employee of Disney with its well-publicized "employee mis-treatment" criticizing the NFL and the near royal treatment of their players as opposed to many of their other employees.

If you can follow logic and nuance, then the reasoning is clear. If anything has been ad hominem is the is characterization of the wealthy.

let's see

disney and obama don't have anything to do with these labor negotiations, so yeah you are completely avoiding the main point

he might very well be a hypocrite douche

but guess what? you still have counter the argument. which is in a nutshell: the league owners are exaggerating their financial predicament

[twylyght]

let's see

disney and obama don't have anything to do with these labor negotiations, so yeah you are completely avoiding the main point

OBAMA

http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-urges-nfl-owners-players-to-strike-a-deal-20110303

DISNEY owns ESPN (employer of reporter for article in original post)

http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/overview.html

Jangler's post was in response to the heart of the article's intent on ad hominem attack of NFL owners for living extravagantly in the middle of a labor dispute. Jangler was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the matter.

but guess what? you still have counter the argument. which is in a nutshell: the league owners are exaggerating their financial predicament

The closest that NFL owners have come to stating their financial situation is with Jerry Richardson's press conference. The rest is multiple hearsay reports from players and speculation from innumerable reporters, hacks, etc. This reporter's angle was CLEARLY to paint the owners in the prototypical light of evil billionaires since people are VERY quick to jump on such a notion. For whatever verbal gymnastics you wish to extol on the reporter's acumen, it still amounts to the same drivel that we've heard for years in the form of badly veiled subtext.

My previous post expounded on this very point but apparently that was not clear enough for you. It's little wonder that JR resorts to childish graphs to get it through to the masses. People will latch onto a picture book like "An Inconvenient Truth" and sings its praises of verisimilitude while obtusely turn their head from anything contrary that requires some actual rationale and thought.

[replive]

Can we leave this pedantic, tireless political debate in the proper forum? I hate when the stupidity of the Tinderbox leaks out to the general board.

[Matt Moore]

Kinda like how you've latched onto Jangler's nuts? :lol:

Jerry's pie chart doesn't mean sh*t to anyone. That's why they should open up the books so that whole hearsay and speculation thing doesn't have as much validity

[twylyght]

Kinda like how you've latched onto Jangler's nuts? :lol:

Jerry's pie chart doesn't mean sh*t to anyone. That's why they should open up the books so that whole hearsay and speculation thing doesn't have as much validity

Speaking of ad hominem

[Matt Moore]

don't use words you don't know the meaning of

Saying "you are wrong because x, y, and z.. PS you are a moron"

not ad hominem