Phil suing over some anonymous yoyo

[brocks]

[QUOTE name="brocks" url="/t/55453/phil-suing-over-some-anonymous-yoyo/36#post_677514"] Who, exactly, determines that something is simply wrong? If it's our Judeo-Christian heritage, then using your examples, there is nothing in the Ten Commandments about arson, but washing your car or mowing your lawn on the Sabbath gets you the death penalty. And murder is OK if you beat a slave to death, as long as it takes him a few days to die. In fact, most people today would say it is obviously wrong to enslave anyone, but our Founding Fathers gave the slave trade the highest status imaginable --- it was the only industry that was protected from Constitutional amendments. So who decides?[/QUOTE] This is either an intentionally combative comment or you are a disturbingly ignorant person.  Say this out loud:  "Most reasonable people would agree that washing your car on Sunday is wrong and punishable, but killing or enslaving a black person is either desirable or irrelevant."  If that doesn't sound outrageously stupid to you, then please post your name and address here so that we can warn your neighbors.

Actually, it does sound outrageously stupid to me, but I was just using examples from the Bible and the Constitution to illustrate how outrageously stupid some Biblical and Constitutional laws can look to people of the modern era. If you don't recognize the parts of the Bible and Constitution that I'm talking about, then you should be very careful about using phrases like "disturbingly ignorant," especially if there are any mirrors in your home. I was trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, but I now see that is impossible, so have a nice day.

[brocks]

And brocks also need to read some of his own country's history regarding slavery.

I'm well aware that it has been illegal since 1865, but I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the Founding Fathers, who were all long dead by then. What is your problem with what I *did* say?

[brocks]

I thought this thread was about Phil Mickelson?

Phil was the inspiration, but it's actually about public figures suing over libel or slander. Up to now, I thought it was pretty interesting.

[sean_miller]

If someone spoke about my family like this guy I'd be taking some sort of action. A man with the financial means to take action and protect the honour of his wife and children could hardly call himself a man otherwise, no?  To suggest Phil is wrong here speaks volumes about personal biases against him. regardless of the "facts" in this case.

[newtogolf]

Exactly, he's within his right to legally pursue this person to prevent them from making these false statements.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

If someone spoke about my family like this guy I'd be taking some sort of action. A man with the financial means to take action and protect the honour of his wife and children could hardly call himself a man otherwise, no?  To suggest Phil is wrong here speaks volumes about personal biases against him. regardless of the "facts" in this case.

[brocks]

If someone spoke about my family like this guy I'd be taking some sort of action.

I don't blame you a bit. You would have a perfect right to be upset. [quote] A man with the financial means to take action and protect the honour of his wife and children could hardly call himself a man otherwise, no?[/quote] Now you sound like a bad beer commercial. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make him unmanly. And I doubt that his wife is dishonored by the ravings of some nobody. I recognize that he may feel differently, and he is certainly entitled to do so, but whether he does or not has nothing to do with being a manly man. [quote] To suggest Phil is wrong here speaks volumes about personal biases against him. regardless of the "facts" in this case. [/quote] And to suggest that anybody who disagrees with you is doing so out of personal bias against Phil is just dumb. Several thoughtful people have noted that it may be counterproductive for Phil to give this guy the attention he craves. I know that I had never heard of these posts before Phil instituted the legal action.

[brocks]

In case there is anybody in this group who would rather learn something new than yell at me when I post about something he doesn't know, this post will provide the direct quotes from the Bible and Constitution that I was talking about. If it wasn't clear, the point of my earlier post is that what is obviously wrong to some people is not obviously wrong to others. k-troop posted this: " Malum in se: something is against the law because it is wrong. Murder, rape, robbery, arson, etc. Malum prohibitum: something is against the law because some dudes in the legislature say so." and I thought the "because it is wrong" phrase raised the obvious question, "Who decides what is wrong?" k-troop used murder as an example, but as I noted, the murder of slaves was condoned for most of history. If we arbitrarily set the beginning of civilization at 5000 years ago (and I won't argue with anyone who wants to set it even earlier), then the murder of slaves has been condoned for almost 49 of those 50 centuries, including in the US. And if we take the Bible as our guide, as those in the Religious Right advocate, then there are many "crimes" for which the Bible prescribes the death penalty, that I don't consider crimes at all. It is a bit astounding to me that he evidently doesn't know about the prohibition of work on the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments, but I am happy to provide chapter and verse for him. All quotes from the King James Version. First, from the Ten Commandments themselves, in the book of Exodus: "20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." The Ten Commandments themselves do not specify the penalty for doing work on the Sabbath, but it is specified later, in the same book. Exodus 31:15 "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." So there you go. Death penalty for washing your car or mowing your lawn last weekend. And possibly death penalty to your wife, for cooking dinner. The most conservative Jews have a very detailed definition of "work" under this commandment that strikes me, at least, as a bit strict. For example, if your house is on fire, you are not allowed to put the fire out, as that is work (you are allowed to fight the fire if it is necessary to save human life, but not to save property). You're not allowed to cook food, or even purify water to drink. You can read more about how little effort it takes to constitute "work" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activities_prohibited_on_Shabbat As for the Constitution, it's somewhat less well known that the slave trade had a protected status, but it is nevertheless true. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution reads: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." There is absolutely no controversy about the fact that this clause was referring to the slave trade. In fact, Congress passed a law prohibiting the importation of slaves, carefully written to take effect on January 1, 1808, in accordance with the above clause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves Slavery was the only private industry so protected by the original constitution, hence my comment to that effect. If you don't like that fact, argue with the Founding Fathers, not with me. And to tie them together, here is what the Bible says about the treatment of slaves: "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." Exodus 21:20-21 (New American Standard Bible)

[clubchamp]

How did we go from Phil trying to sue someone that was a trashing his wife on the internet to the founding fathers and the bible? I don't think you are educating people here but rather going well beyond logical thought to this situation.

[brocks]

How did we go from Phil trying to sue someone that was a trashing his wife on the internet to the founding fathers and the bible? I don't think you are educating people here but rather going well beyond logical thought to this situation.

If you read the thread, you can see how we got here. There was a good discussion about the wisdom of Phil's actions, and whether he even had a case, since it can be hard for a public figure to win a libel/slander suit. Some people posted about different rulings, and k-troop posted about the distinction between things that were wrong only because there was a law against them, and things that were intrinsically wrong. I asked, in all innocence, who decides things are intrinsically wrong, since standards vary with time and place, and somehow k-troop and others interpreted that as me calling their mom a woman of loose morals, or something. So I posted the exact quotes from the Bible and Constitution I was talking about, just to show that they said nothing about k-troop's mom. Who I'm sure is a very nice lady.

[sean_miller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

If someone spoke about my family like this guy I'd be taking some sort of action.

I don't blame you a bit. You would have a perfect right to be upset.

Quote:

A man with the financial means to take action and protect the honour of his wife and children could hardly call himself a man otherwise, no?

Now you sound like a bad beer commercial. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make him unmanly. And I doubt that his wife is dishonored by the ravings of some nobody. I recognize that he may feel differently, and he is certainly entitled to do so, but whether he does or not has nothing to do with being a manly man.

Quote:

To suggest Phil is wrong here speaks volumes about personal biases against him. regardless of the "facts" in this case.

And to suggest that anybody who disagrees with you is doing so out of personal bias against Phil is just dumb. Several thoughtful people have noted that it may be counterproductive for Phil to give this guy the attention he craves. I know that I had never heard of these posts before Phil instituted the legal action.

Not sure you had to chop up my short post in order to state your case. But since you did, I'll just say that with all the volumes you've written about Tiger, I have no doubt you have an inherent dislike for Mickelson. I suspect if Tiger were fighting this fight for Elin you'd be starting threads left and right praising his name.

[k-troop]

Dude, I'm really not sure how my mom got into this thread.  And yes--she's super cool.

I made a very vague comment about malum in se vs. malum prohibitum in response to someone's comment about degrees of illegality to show that, in legal doctrine, there are degrees of illegality.  I admit that my comment was off-topic, but it was very brief, quite uncontroversial, and directed specifically at two other comments on the thread.

Your response was to say that it's not clear whether something is inherently wrong.  As an example, you gave the fact that at one time it was lawful to enslave and then murder someone.  Though you didn't state so explicitly, your comment clearly referred to black slaves, which I find in poor taste.  I pointed out that your response was inherently absurd.  I guess I should have said "the doctrine must necessarily be interpreted at a specific point in time, as standards of behavior evolve over time--sometimes quite drastically."  However, it seemed self-evident to me that your comment wasn't intended to make a valid or intellectually interesting point, but just to be argumentative.

I have made no other comments.  I haven't commented about the chastity (or lack thereof) of anyone's mother.  I have also not interpreted any of your comments as a knock on my mother, except for the one comment where you actually commented about my mother.   Please do not take my calling your comment absurd as license to attribute to me every other comment on this thread.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by brocks

I'm well aware that it has been illegal since 1865, but I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the Founding Fathers, who were all long dead by then. What is your problem with what I *did* say?

Sorry - I meant k-troop.  You're right!!

[iacas]

This thread will get back on topic or be closed, mmmmkay?

[brocks]

Not sure you had to chop up my short post in order to state your case.

Obviously, because I agreed with parts of it, and disagreed with others. What's so hard to understand about putting my comments next to the parts I am commenting about? [quote] But since you did, I'll just say that with all the volumes you've written about Tiger, I have no doubt you have an inherent dislike for Mickelson. I suspect if Tiger were fighting this fight for Elin you'd be starting threads left and right praising his name. [/quote] I have never understood people who think it's impossible to like more than one golfer at a time, and I've given up trying. Phil is my second favorite golfer, and I am rooting for him to win 50 events and another major or two before he retires.

[sean_miller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Not sure you had to chop up my short post in order to state your case.

Obviously, because I agreed with parts of it, and disagreed with others. What's so hard to understand about putting my comments next to the parts I am commenting about?

Quote:

But since you did, I'll just say that with all the volumes you've written about Tiger, I have no doubt you have an inherent dislike for Mickelson. I suspect if Tiger were fighting this fight for Elin you'd be starting threads left and right praising his name.

I have never understood people who think it's impossible to like more than one golfer at a time, and I've given up trying. Phil is my second favorite golfer, and I am rooting for him to win 50 events and another major or two before he retires.

I'm not going to debate multiquotes. My personal opinion on them isn't the issue, so I'll move on.

I can count on one hand the number of people I've reads posts from who love Tiger and do not despise Phil - kudos, you're on a very short list.

[brocks]

I made a very vague comment about malum in se vs. malum prohibitum in response to someone's comment about degrees of illegality to show that, in legal doctrine, there are degrees of illegality.  I admit that my comment was off-topic, but it was very brief, quite uncontroversial, and directed specifically at two other comments on the thread.

I disagree that it was off-topic. I thought it was on topic, informative, and interesting. Which is why I wanted to find out more about it. I have no idea why you got so upset at my response. [quote] Your response was to say that it's not clear whether something is inherently wrong.  As an example, you gave the fact that at one time it was lawful to enslave and then murder someone.  Though you didn't state so explicitly, your comment clearly referred to black slaves, which I find in poor taste.[/quote] I don't see why black slavery is in worse taste than any other slavery, but in any case, my comment CLEARLY referred to the slaves of the ancient Hebrews. If it wasn't enough of a clue that the sentence about slaves was in a paragraph about the Ten Commandments and Judeo-Christian heritage, I also explicitly noted that it was murder only if the slave died within a day or two of being beaten. That was a clear reference to the Bible verse I quoted in a later post. So you were all upset over nothing. [quote]  I pointed out that your response was inherently absurd.  I guess I should have said "the doctrine must necessarily be interpreted at a specific point in time, as standards of behavior evolve over time--sometimes quite drastically."  [/quote] Yes, that would have been more helpful than calling me ignorant. Especially since it was your ignorance, not mine, that caused you to misunderstand what I was saying. [quote]However, it seemed self-evident to me that your comment wasn't intended to make a valid or intellectually interesting point, but just to be argumentative. [/quote] I still don't see how you get that, even allowing for your lack of a clue about the founding documents of Western Civilization, but you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how uninformed it is.

[brocks]

I can count on one hand the number of people I've reads posts from who love Tiger and do not despise Phil - kudos, you're on a very short list.

Maybe you hang out with the wrong crowd --- almost everybody I play golf with feels the same as I do. Phil is a wonderful talent, and he goes out of his way to be fan friendly. People might say he doesn't really enjoy signing autographs for an hour, but so what --- if he doesn't, that just makes it more commendable, IMO. Besides, one of the most popular knocks against Tiger is that his competition isn't as tough as Jack's was. I think that's absurd, but it's for another thread. But the more Phil wins, the better he makes Tiger look, so I root for him to win every event where Tiger isn't in contention.

[jpalermo]

This is one of the most off topic ridiculious posts I have seen on here. Phil is suing the internet service provider for the guys name because he's Phil Mickelson and he can. Who cares why he is or what he's going to do after he gets the guys name, if he ever does.  If their privacy laws prevent it, it's done. The Canadian government really doesn't give a shit about who he is.  I've got a bible, a couple slaves, a dictionary and my lawyers business card on the fact that he won't get the name and we won't hear much about it later on. Any takers?

On a side note, the multi quotes are actually very annoying.