nymr83 Old-Timey Member Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 AG/DC wrote:="Nymr83"]its legal there, not the Mets' business.How far do you want to take that logic?Whether or not the government should care, I don't think an employer should take any action against an employee for his actions that were legal in the country where they were taken (unless explicitly prohibited by his contract or something)
Guest AG/DC Guests Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Well, they do, all the time. Players fuck up, embarass the team, fans object, advocacy groups write letters, and they suspend him to save face.Happened with John Rocker. They have some pretty broad language about embarrassing conduct.I'm more concerned with how it concerns people. You and me.
nymr83 Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I don't know that Rocker deserved to be punished. He wasn't on the field or even on company time, and he didn't DO anything. I wouldn't punish freedom of speech.
Elster88 Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Nymr83 wrote:I don't know that Rocker deserved to be punished. He wasn't on the field or even on company time, and he didn't DO anything. I wouldn't punish freedom of speech.This argument gets thrown out there all the time and cracks me up. The interview was done by SPORTS ILLUSTRATED. They were interviewing him because he was a pitcher for the Braves. He was representing his team.If I made the same comments while being interviewed, and was identified in that interview as an employee for my company, my shit would be packed for me when I arrived the next day.Do you really think Freedom of Speech should give you carte blanche to be a dumbass and reflect negatively on your organization? Of course he's going to be punished.
metsmarathon Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 freedom of speech does not abdicate you of responsibility for that which is spoken.
metirish Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Freedom of course is not free, or so I've read on the Sprain Brook.That vid was from two years ago if that means anything( probably not to the Rooster)Pedro's at bat music now must ne Alice in Chains "Rooster".
Centerfield Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Michael Vick broke the law, Pedro did not. For me that's difference enough...though I think it's important to note that Pedro appears to have attended an event where Vick set up the whole operation. I think if Michael Vick got caught attending a dog-fight, he would still be gainfully employed.As far as from a moral standpoint, I don't get worked up over cruelty to animals because I simply don't understand or see any logic in our arbitrary definitions of cruelty. By our society's standards, dog-fighting, or cock-fighting is cruel, but it is perfectly legal to take a gun and shoot certain animals. People say hunting is different, because the animals are not tortured, but if I were an animal, I would think any sport where I'm unarmed and people are shooting at me would qualify as cruel. To make matters more complex, shooting deer, ducks, geese, rabbits, foxes etc. is perfectly ok so long as they are in season, but if anyone were to shoot a dog, that would be considered cruel. Making chickens fight each other is bad, but making horses run really fast to the point they break their legs and have to be put down is not. No one blinks when we eat cows, chicken and pigs, so long as they are killed humanely, but if one were to serve dog and cat burgers, people would flip out no matter how humanely they were killed. Mice are rodents and can be killed in traps, but hamsters and guinea pigs are pets. It all seems too arbitrary to me.
Guest AG/DC Guests Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 People blink all the time at it. We all have trouble reconciling these distinctions, as individuals, as societies, and as a species.Do any of us have any idea whether electrofying your swimming pool is illegal in Panama? Did you pause to find legal details before judging Rivera?
metirish Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 IIRC someone here at the time checked out the legal codes for swimming pools in Panama, or tried too at least......maybe I am confused but I remember a lot of chat about that incident.
nymr83 Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 The age of consent in a hypothetical country, lets say France, is 16. Player X goes to France and bangs a 16-year-old, should the team punish him? 15? 13?
Benjamin Grimm Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 If a team decides to punish a player because of some activity (whatever it is) that doesn't break any laws, then they're doing it for public relations purposes. And that's not necessarily the wrong thing to do; these are public figures and the teams are public business.But you have to draw a line somewhere. I can see ditching or suspending a player if it's discovered that he went on a pedophile cruise in Thailand, for example. But on the other hand, the public reprimand that the Mets gave Cleon Jones back in 1975 was unnecessary and it embarrassed the team (or at least, it should have) as much as it did the player.
soupcan Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Centerfield wrote: Mice are rodents and can be killed in traps, but hamsters and guinea pigs are pets. It all seems too arbitrary to me.Can you imagine if you had 30 or so hamsters and/or guinea pigs living in your walls and leaving little (or not so little) shits all over your basement and kitchen cupboards?Yeesh.
nymr83 Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 i'd exterminate their asses faster than you can call the PETA idiots.FYI i think Mice are cuter than Guinea Pigs.]But on the other hand, the public reprimand that the Mets gave Cleon Jones back in 1975 was unnecessary and it embarrassed the team (or at least, it should have) as much as it did the player.what did he do? i wasn't around
soupcan Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 If memory serves he was caught naked in a van with an underage girl.'Zat right?
Guest AG/DC Guests Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Nymr83 wrote:i'd exterminate their asses faster than you can call the PETA idiots.That'll show 'em.I've read no account that places Cleon's paramour as anything less than a consenting age.
Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket Guests Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I don't think it was underage -- in the 70s I'm pretty sure they didn't care what age you were. The scandal was that she was white and Cleon was married.Grant was a terrible blueblood stuffed shirt who fancied himself a "sportsman" -- the kind of guy Ted Knight parodied in Caddyshack -- and they were obliged to act horrified by what the "help" had done. They arranged for a press conference where Jones alongside his properly chocolatey wifey, apologized to the fans.
soupcan Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I stand corrected.Do I get any points for naked in a van with a woman?
Frayed Knot Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 soupcan wrote:Do I get any points for naked in a van with a woman?We'll need to see pictures of the woman before we decide on how many points we give you.
Methead Old-Timey Member Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Pictures of the van for extra credit.
Zach Thornton Syracuse Mets - AAA LHP On Sunday, the southpaw tossed five shutout innings as the bulk pitcher. He gave up 2 hits, walked 2 and had 5 strikeouts. Explore Zach Thornton News >
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.