Donald Sterling At It Again

[DarksideEric]

I don't know where I said he wasn't somewhat self serving. Self serving is just not one of the first adjectives I would use to describe Johnson's starting and branding of his foundation. I will also say that I don't find any fault in being self serving. If you get mugged and someone tries to kill you on the street am I supposed to describe you as being "self serving" for defending yourself? I mean you didn't start fighting muggers until you were confronted by one even though you knew muggers existed before. Isn't that petty?

Right or not, isn't Sterling being petty? And deflective?

More than likely yeah. I was just reading the conversation and took note of the whole foundation thing. So I just tossed a couple pennies in on the whole "self-serving" issue since not too long ago a friend of mine spent pretty much the better part of an hour trying to convince me that there are absolutely zero acts of selflessness in the world.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

More than likely yeah. I was just reading the conversation and took note of the whole foundation thing. So I just tossed a couple pennies in on the whole "self-serving" issue since not too long ago a friend of mine spent pretty much the better part of an hour trying to convince me that there are absolutely zero acts of selflessness in the world.

I don't know. I'm pulling terms out of my ass but I struggle to believe selflessness, free will and cognitive reasoning can mesh. Even Bruce Willis' character at the end of Armageddon probably had some personal satisfaction in sacrificing himself for Ben Affleck and all humankind.

 

[Slyfox696]

You're just parroting Judeo-Christian orthodoxy and making assumptions, abstractions and projections. You haven't proven anything, not in the empirical sense. You might think it immoral but it is not necessarily so. I might even agree. But you have failed to advance your argument other than erudite foot stamping and insistence. Poor show.

I'm not "parroting" anything, I'm making statements of fact. You're speaking in theory, I'm speaking in realism. You can talk all you want about various theories and abstractions, but in this world and especially in this country, infidelity is immoral. It really doesn't matter how YOU feel about it, what matters is the fact it is.

You post like you think you're some great and intelligent being, going philosophically where others cannot hope to follow. The problem is while you're off doing your impersonation of Aristotle, you're missing the forest for the trees. Magic himself has already stated in interviews he knew his cheating and catching HIV would hurt Cookie. So unless you're trying to say you know better than him what hurt his wife, then his activities violated her trust and hurt her.

You're wrong. Donald Sterling was correct.

True, but how does that make a person unable or unworthy of judging another?

What I said from the beginning is that Johnson should not be throwing morality stones from inside his glass house. If you don't understand why his large amount of significant moral failings should preclude him from publicly criticizing anyone else's morals, then I don't really think we're going to accomplish much else in this discussion.

Regardless, you seem to think naming Magic's foundation after himself was self serving. Isn't it possible that it was branding?

Branding can be anything you want it to be. Magic Johnson could have named it the "HIV Awareness Foundation" and worked tirelessly as its spokesperson and raised money too.

Magic Johnson started a foundation to raise money for his sickness and put his name on it. I think it's pretty clear to see why I'm not exactly impressed with what you believe to be his generous spirit.

This isnt a criminal matter.

And neither is what Sterling said. We're simply looking at it from a morality perspective. I suppose one could understand the "it was long ago when he was a kid" argument, but I'm just not sure that cheating and introducing a potentially deadly disease to your family is something I'm so willing to dismiss.

And I'd say looking at things either altruistic or self serving is idealistic and not realistic.

But when trying to tell me Magic has done great things which now gives him the right to criticize another's moral failings, I don't think setting up a self-serving cause gets you to where you need to be.

 

[Gibby]

I'm not "parroting" anything, I'm making statements of fact. You're speaking in theory, I'm speaking in realism. You can talk all you want about various theories and abstractions, but in this world and especially in this country, infidelity is immoral. It really doesn't matter how YOU feel about it, what matters is the fact it is.

You post like you think you're some great and intelligent being, going philosophically where others cannot hope to follow. The problem is while you're off doing your impersonation of Aristotle, you're missing the forest for the trees. Magic himself has already stated in interviews he knew his cheating and catching HIV would hurt Cookie. So unless you're trying to say you know better than him what hurt his wife, then his activities violated her trust and hurt her.

fact
fakt/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts

a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Sadly, to the degree I specifically required from you, you have proved nothing.

I daresay his wife was hurt and he knew what he was doing. But one swallow does not a summer make. Extrapolating from one instance does not make 'truth' in any meaningful sense.

(Im)morality is subjective. It changes in time and from person to person. While we're on the topic of Aristotle (not actually a fan) - in Ancient Greek times the most sublime and indeed most moral form of love was that between a man and a boy; for pedagogy, fatherliness and for romance.

We derive much of our rooting in moral philosophy and thinking from the Greeks and yet this peculiar and particular behaviour would be considered absolutely untenable now. It would be considered, in short, immoral. You, the essentialist that you are, cannot grasp this flexibility, change and innate slipperiness of 'morals'. Just because you don't like it and you wouldn't like it done to you (and trust me: I really hope my girlfriend never cheats on me and catches an STI. It would be a pretty bad day in the Gibby household.) does not mean something is immoral.

We could go on, talking about how times have changed (it used to be considered moral to deprive natives of their homes, that rape was a mere fact of war and that ownership of humans was considered okay. I'm sure those people would have defended their acts as 'realism') but I think I've made my point.

Apologies if you think I carry on as if I am "some great and intelligent being" and maybe there's a fault on my side: I did go to one of the best universities in the world for an MPhil and critical thinking of this kind factors into my doctorate. But ultimately this is just tone policing and not really applicable here.

Perhaps Magic Johnson is not the best person to criticise Donald Sterling. But as the person criticised in the tapes, I daresay the media went to him for comment and it was his right for him to offer his opinion. You can disregard it on whatever basis you see fit, but don't dress up your opinion as morals. It is totally okay for you to think Magic Johnson is a bad man. But immoral in any meaningful sense? Hells naw.

 

[A11oftheLights]

When the fuck did magic johnson question anyone's ethics and morality, magic has actually stayed out of the whole thing* apart from when he declared he had interest in buying the clippers.

*publicly johnson hasn't said anything about sterling just that he wants to buy the clips, wether or not he has said anything to sterling privately is entirely debatable as the only person's word we have to go off is sterlings and tbh that guy has shown what he says isnt really trustworthy/reliable.

 

[Slyfox696]

a thing that is known or proved to be true.[/i]

And it was proven that Magic's wife was hurt when he told her, Magic has confirmed that.

Seriously, you've lost.

Sadly, to the degree I specifically required from you, you have proved nothing.

I've proven everything, you just hate to think you're ridiculous attempt to interject pure theory in a real situation failed.

(Im)morality is subjective.

But it's not in this case. You are wrong. Just admit it.

I think I've made my point.

No, you've proven you've missed the forest for the trees, as I said earlier. You're getting so caught up in your theory, you're not paying attention to the facts.

The fact is cheating is considered immoral by today's society. Morals are usually determined in one of two (or both) ways: it is either determined by society or it is determined by the individual. In both cases, Magic Johnson failed. American society has long considered cheating immoral, as it has expressed severe condemnation for those who spread STDs as well. Cookie clearly considered Magic's cheating and infection to be hurtful, a violation of her trust.

By both standards of establishing morality, Magic Johnson failed. You keep throwing theory at me, while not regarding the application. You keep telling me I don't understand that morality is flexible, but the only one not understanding said flexibility is you. Morality can be both abstract and applicable, but you're only allowing for the abstract and not the application.

You're wrong. In every way possible you're wrong. You asked why cheating was immoral, I told you. You asked me to prove it was immoral and I did, both in a general sense as well as this specific sense.

Apologies if you think I carry on as if I am "some great and intelligent being" and maybe there's a fault on my side: I did go to one of the best universities in the world for an MPhil

The fault is the way you seem to think no one (or, at the very least, me) can exist on your level of thinking right now, when quite frankly what you're saying would barely bend the mind of 14 year old.

But you're so caught up in what your saying, you keep missing the point, you keep missing how it applies to the real world. Even when children are 14, we teach them how the theory applies in the real world. You seem to be missing this and only want to go on philosophical rants.

Perhaps Magic Johnson is not the best person to criticise Donald Sterling.

He's not.

but don't dress up your opinion as morals.

I'm not, I'm saying Magic shouldn't be throwing morality stones in his glass house. I think it's the third time I've said that.

It is totally okay for you to think Magic Johnson is a bad man.

I've never said Johnson was a bad man. Just that he shouldn't be publicly judging others for moral failings.

 

[Gibby]

Quite convenient as it is for you to skip, I did write the following:

in Ancient Greek times the most sublime and indeed most moral form of love was that between a man and a boy; for pedagogy, fatherliness and for romance.

We derive much of our rooting in moral philosophy and thinking from the Greeks and yet this peculiar and particular behaviour would be considered absolutely untenable now. It would be considered, in short, immoral.

We could go on, talking about how times have changed (it used to be considered moral to deprive natives of their homes, that rape was a mere fact of war and that ownership of humans was considered okay. I'm sure those people would have defended their acts as 'realism')

If you need to think of conversations as "winning" and "losing" then that's fine by me, it's a bit teenage, but trying to pretend something wasn't said because all you can come up with in 5 days is the same thing you said last week? Those back there are real world examples. They can't be disregarded because they don't fit your thesis.

Magic Johnson can criticise who he wants, and indeed has, and people have listened and felt it a morally-persuasive argument. The real world has felt your idea worthy of disregard: the application of your thesis that he shouldn't be throwing stones has been rejected by the populace.

 

[Slyfox696]

Quite convenient as it is for you to skip, I did write the following:

I didn't skip it, I addressed it here.

The fact is cheating is considered immoral by today's society. Morals are usually determined in one of two (or both) ways: it is either determined by society or it is determined by the individual. In both cases, Magic Johnson failed. American society has long considered cheating immoral, as it has expressed severe condemnation for those who spread STDs as well. Cookie clearly considered Magic's cheating and infection to be hurtful, a violation of her trust.

By both standards of establishing morality, Magic Johnson failed. You keep throwing theory at me, while not regarding the application. You keep telling me I don't understand that morality is flexible, but the only one not understanding said flexibility is you. Morality can be both abstract and applicable, but you're only allowing for the abstract and not the application.

If you need to think of conversations as "winning" and "losing" then that's fine

When two people debate, especially after one as said the other is wrong (as you did to me), then it is a winning/losing issue, whether you want it to be or not. And you've lost.

but trying to pretend something wasn't said because all you can come up with in 5 days is the same thing you said last week? Those back there are real world examples. They can't be disregarded because they don't fit your thesis.

A) I did address them, just not where you expected me to. Don't blame me for your lack of comprehension.
B) Your 5 days crack is laughable. In the last 5 days I have: moved a friend, cooked dinner for my significant other and her parents, attended an air show twice, grilled for an entire school and chaperoned a field trip. This was really the first opportunity I had to take the time to respond to a thread I lost interest in long ago.

The fact you criticized me for being busy in real life, while simultaneously ignoring what I said and criticizing me for that as well is quite humorous.

Magic Johnson can criticise who he wants

But he shouldn't. The fact you still don't understand my argument saddens me.

The real world has felt your idea worthy of disregard

Oh really? The real world now accepts cheating and exposing one's family to deadly situations moral?

Or are you just saying the world is okay with a black guy responding to a racist, because said black guy's transgressions happened twenty years ago?

 

[jacdnwarrior]

I have had some problems with the Sterling issue. For a few reasons. He gets caught by a girlfriend of his on audio recording saying horrible things about African Americans. Now the fact that a woman can record a guy without his permission during a private conversation and then it can be used against him is troubling. The league and the players did nothing as Elgin Baylor (former player and one time Clippers executive) sued Sterling for discrimination but now a number of years later after this recording everyone finds him too disgusting to have in the league. I'm not sure I like the idea of any one being monitored so much that he has to censor himself in private conversations. I don't like what he said, I think he was wrong for saying what he did, but he won't be the first or last person who owns a business who has such thoughts.

As far as Magic is concerned, Magic didn't ask to be brought into this issue. Sterling (correct me if I'm wrong) went off because Magic posed with his girlfriend in a photo, which she then posted online. Sterling should have just apologized to Magic and left it at that. He decides to talk about Magic and his infidelity and his inability to be a moral leader while he is losing his team because his mistress recorded his offensive comments in a private conversation which somehow got released to the public. I mean that's a little much isn't it ? Magic, if I believe him only said to Sterling to apologize for what he said about him and his other comments. Now that's just advice he should have heeded.

Attacking Johnson's morality is a smokescreen. Sterling is no moral figure, Johnson is no moral figure (I suppose) but Johnson wasn't trying to be in this incident. Cheating is wrong, but let's be real here, I have no idea what rules he and his girlfriend/wife decided on when they were together, as I heard it, he was allowed to be with other women provided it was just sex and no relationship, if that's true, why is that anyone's business ? We've had politicians (presidents, etc), royalty, athletes, civil rights leaders, pastors, tele evangelists, actors and other high profile people all caught having affairs (in addition to other more lower profile people) but we still live in this absurd idealist world that you can never redeem yourself after committing the act no matter how many decades it's been since you cheated. After cheating you should never have any opinion on anything so long as you live, no matter how valid it might be because you cheated. People who've done far worse are not as heavily condemned. That's just bizarre to me.