(03-14-2017 11:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  confused img

Smart and Intelligent both just point back to Intelligence. Intelligence (the primary definition, not the military definition) point to knowledge. Knowledge points to facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education.

I guess I could've used anti-facts or anti-information.

It's a seemingly sound if unorthodox argument.

I'll be interested to see where this goes.

(03-14-2017 11:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  With regard to the ACC tournament, this is entirely their choice.

The ACC can't risk being seen as anti-inclusive, so it couldn't risk having its tournament in NC.

It's choice was made for them, by the state of NC.

(03-14-2017 11:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 11:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  With regard to the ACC tournament, this is entirely their choice.

The ACC can't risk being seen as anti-inclusive, so it couldn't risk having its tournament in NC.

It's choice was made for them, by the state of NC.

Funny, how its not affected other conferences in other states who didnt pull this stunt.

(03-14-2017 11:22 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Here's the huge problem I think NC faces: how do you dismiss or bypass the fact that the NCAA has already done this for years to South Carolina in regards to the confederate flag being flown previously?????

Simple, nothing in NC has changed that lessened protections in NC from the day before Charlotte passed their ordinance. In fact, some protections have increased.
I'd think the long-standing presence of games in NC could be one differentiating factor, as well as the fact that games continue in other states where similar laws as NC's continue to exist.

(03-14-2017 11:29 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  its not affected other conferences in other states who didnt pull this stunt.

(03-14-2017 11:30 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  nothing in NC has changed that lessened protections in NC from the day before Charlotte passed their ordinance. In fact, some protections have increased.

I'd think the long-standing presence of games in NC could be one differentiating factor, as well as the fact that games continue in other states where similar laws as NC's continue to exist.

But, as has already been mentioned, there is no requirement in NCAA or ACC by-laws requiring it to host tournaments in any particular state.

They're free to choose whichever state they desire, regardless how the laws have or haven't changed and regardless of the history of previous hosting.

Quote:With regard to the ACC tournament, this is entirely their choice.

He's saying they have no choice in making the decisions now and not waiting because venues get booked up.

Right.

In other words: in order to book an appropriately sized venue for a whole week, they have to do the booking well in advance.

The ACC can't afford to sit around for months and wait for this to be hashed out. It has to book a venue now.

(03-14-2017 11:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 11:29 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  its not affected other conferences in other states who didnt pull this stunt.

(03-14-2017 11:30 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  nothing in NC has changed that lessened protections in NC from the day before Charlotte passed their ordinance. In fact, some protections have increased.

I'd think the long-standing presence of games in NC could be one differentiating factor, as well as the fact that games continue in other states where similar laws as NC's continue to exist.

But, as has already been mentioned, there is no requirement in NCAA or ACC by-laws requiring it to host tournaments in any particular state.

They're free to choose whichever state they desire, regardless how the laws have or haven't changed and regardless of the history of previous hosting.

Wrong.

If you affect commerce, you are subject to regulations.

By the way, just like Target, its been a nasty hit on the ACC. Their football conference championship had the lowest attendance in forever.

If the ACC wants to see their future, it looks like the Target stock. Here's an updated 3 month view of Target's stock performce, for those interested.

(03-14-2017 11:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If you affect commerce, you are subject to regulations.

Silly argument, everything affects everything.

The way a butterfly flaps its wings will have an effect on the ACC and NC, in the future.

Imo it would be one thing if going forward the NCAA and ACC is It chose not to schedule events in NC. They could maintain the regular season games, bowl game, and baseball regionals as proof of no boycott.

However the NCAA and ACC meant clear economic harm to the state when they pulled events last minute like they did. As non profit organizations dealing with sports administration are they allowed to use economic warfare like that to promote social change, something outside of their purview? Its a worthy discussion since both organizations are clearly intending and stating they want to inflict economic harm on the state for non compliance

(03-14-2017 11:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Right.

In other words: in order to book an appropriately sized venue for a whole week, they have to do the booking well in advance.

The ACC can't afford to sit around for months and wait for this to be hashed out. It has to book a venue now.

It didn't have to move the games from NC, therefore, entirely their choice.

(03-14-2017 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Kruciff,

Probably the worst result of Trump being elected was the eureka moment that conservatives, and those worse than conservatives, had in regards to the outcome: the truth is arbitrary, so long as you can convince 50% + 1 to agree with what you say.

Perhaps even worse than that is the "tactic" of promoting anti-knowledge to those who are to be swayed, in the sense of "listen to how intelligent he's trying to sound ... actually, that means he's talking DOWN to you!! Take that as a personal insult! Dismiss whatever he says! Instead, listen to me! I'm your friend!"


It is truly scary.

I'm not sure it's really that way.

The people who were in the Not-Trump, but definitely not Clinton camp have come to regret their vote (even if Clinton would only be marginally better) and (in my experience) are quite vocal against the so-called President.

The #MAGA's appear to be doubling down.

The same people who hide from facts by plugging their ears are the same, regardless of who is president or how this debacle came about.

(03-14-2017 12:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  However the NCAA and ACC meant clear economic harm to the state when they pulled events last minute like they did. As non profit organizations dealing with sports administration are they allowed to use economic warfare like that to promote social change, something outside of their purview? Its a worthy discussion since both organizations are clearly intending and stating they want to inflict economic harm on the state for non compliance

See here's the thing. Even if that were true, how could you prove that? They can make realistic and rational claim that they are protecting their image, by disassociating themselves from North Carolina where they can. They can't force Duke, NC State, WF, or UNC to pack up and leave.

That doesn't mean they have to hold additional events there.

We could take the conservative sex education approach to hindsight problem solving. Don't want to suffer the consequences of negative publicity and economic effects? Don't pass laws that discriminate openly against other human beings.

We've seen this already taking place. I guarantee you if Georgia had legal precedent to overrule the threats of Coca-Cola and Hollywood from picking up and leaving after they planned to pass a similar law, they would have.

This whole non-issue is just an attempt at publicity and attention to the losing plight of a conservative, socially backward law. I think many people on this forum would call it "butthurt".

(03-14-2017 11:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 11:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If you affect commerce, you are subject to regulations.

Silly argument, everything affects everything.

The way a butterfly flaps its wings will have an effect on the ACC and NC, in the future.

So you agree that the Oregon bakers were screwed over by the gay couple, and that forcing that on Christians is not right?

(03-14-2017 12:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 11:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 11:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If you affect commerce, you are subject to regulations.

Silly argument, everything affects everything.

The way a butterfly flaps its wings will have an effect on the ACC and NC, in the future.

So you agree that the Oregon bakers were screwed over by the gay couple, and that forcing that on Christians is not right?

How in the world did you draw that conclusion from what he said?

Try and stay on topic, Play-Doh.

(03-14-2017 12:25 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 12:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 11:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 11:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If you affect commerce, you are subject to regulations.

Silly argument, everything affects everything.

The way a butterfly flaps its wings will have an effect on the ACC and NC, in the future.

So you agree that the Oregon bakers were screwed over by the gay couple, and that forcing that on Christians is not right?

How in the world did you draw that conclusion from what he said?

Try and stay on topic, Play-Doh.

If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would realize that I'm playing chess while bison is playing checkers and you are playing tiddly winks.

(03-14-2017 12:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 12:25 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 12:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 11:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 11:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If you affect commerce, you are subject to regulations.

Silly argument, everything affects everything.

The way a butterfly flaps its wings will have an effect on the ACC and NC, in the future.

So you agree that the Oregon bakers were screwed over by the gay couple, and that forcing that on Christians is not right?

How in the world did you draw that conclusion from what he said?

Try and stay on topic, Play-Doh.

If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would realize that I'm playing chess while bison is playing checkers and you are playing tiddly winks.

This reminds of that analogy of Chess and Pigeons.

No matter how good you think you are, the pigeon is still going to strut all over, knocking pieces down, acting like he won, then proceed to **** on the board.

I'm glad you brought it up, it's very fitting.

Also, more on topic, we can all see where you were going with that reference. There was nothing "Chess" about it.

We can also see that it's not entirely relevant and is distracting from the original point at best, and putting words that Bison didn't say in his mouth at worst.

(03-14-2017 12:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  See here's the thing. Even if that were true, how could you prove that? They can make realistic and rational claim that they are protecting their image, by disassociating themselves from North Carolina where they can. They can't force Duke, NC State, WF, or UNC to pack up and leave.

That doesn't mean they have to hold additional events there.

We could take the conservative sex education approach to hindsight problem solving. Don't want to suffer the consequences of negative publicity and economic effects? Don't pass laws that discriminate openly against other human beings.

We've seen this already taking place. I guarantee you if Georgia had legal precedent to overrule the threats of Coca-Cola and Hollywood from picking up and leaving after they planned to pass a similar law, they would have.

This whole non-issue is just an attempt at publicity and attention to the losing plight of a conservative, socially backward law. I think many people on this forum would call it "butthurt".

From the ACC Commish

"The ACC Council of Presidents made it clear that the core values of this league are of the utmost importance, and the opposition to any form of discrimination is paramount," ACC Commissioner John Swofford said in a statement. "Today's decision is one of principle, and while this decision is the right one, we recognize there will be individuals and communities that are supportive of our values as well as our championship sites that will be negatively affected. Hopefully, there will be opportunities beyond 2016-17 for North Carolina neutral sites to be awarded championships."


So the ACC per their own statement made this decision of their own free will in order to protest a law they did not like.

Coke and Hollywood are not non profit organizations and thus can use economic warfare to their fullest advantage.

So the question remains, can non profits engage in economic warfare to lobby against laws they do not like, particularly non profits that receive a substantial amount of money from the government?

(03-14-2017 01:04 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 12:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  See here's the thing. Even if that were true, how could you prove that? They can make realistic and rational claim that they are protecting their image, by disassociating themselves from North Carolina where they can. They can't force Duke, NC State, WF, or UNC to pack up and leave.

That doesn't mean they have to hold additional events there.

We could take the conservative sex education approach to hindsight problem solving. Don't want to suffer the consequences of negative publicity and economic effects? Don't pass laws that discriminate openly against other human beings.

We've seen this already taking place. I guarantee you if Georgia had legal precedent to overrule the threats of Coca-Cola and Hollywood from picking up and leaving after they planned to pass a similar law, they would have.

This whole non-issue is just an attempt at publicity and attention to the losing plight of a conservative, socially backward law. I think many people on this forum would call it "butthurt".

From the ACC Commish

"The ACC Council of Presidents made it clear that the core values of this league are of the utmost importance, and the opposition to any form of discrimination is paramount," ACC Commissioner John Swofford said in a statement. "Today's decision is one of principle, and while this decision is the right one, we recognize there will be individuals and communities that are supportive of our values as well as our championship sites that will be negatively affected. Hopefully, there will be opportunities beyond 2016-17 for North Carolina neutral sites to be awarded championships."


So the ACC per their own statement made this decision of their own free will in order to protest a law they did not like.

Coke and Hollywood are not non profit organizations and thus can use economic warfare to their fullest advantage.

So the question remains, can non profits engage in economic warfare to lobby against laws they do not like, particularly non profits that receive a substantial amount of money from the government?

The ACC, per their own statement, removed themselves from a state that conflicted with their core tenet of "opposition to any form of discrimination" which the North Carolina law creates, clearly.

Where the disconnect is, is you are implying that the ACC removed itself out of spite, which isn't declared or implied. You are simply equating "removing themselves from a state with a discriminatory law" to "being economically spiteful to the state with a discriminatory law" which is not apparent or implied. THEN you are conflating that false conclusion to "economic warfare" of which the overall impact to the whole state of North Carolina could hardly be called an economic skirmish, let alone warfare. More like an economic scuffle. Tavern Brawl. Harshly spoken words leading to "hold me back" type scenarios.

Is it a common tenet of conservative policy, "let the market decide"? Non-profit organizations, regardless of their tax incentive, are still governed by the free market, of which the NC government passed a law (knowingly or not) that produced a negative outcome. I have no pity.