Greg Hardy and the Media

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The marine has spoken.

 

[tyke1doe]

and because so many like you have their noses in other peoples business - that is why there is so much PC garbage today.

Or, because people like to broadcast their business to others, maybe that's why they're getting in more trouble. If you want it to be private, keep it private.

I have a best friend who was a cop for 15 years and his father was one for 30. He got out because of the way things were going downhill in police forces due to PC and politics and so on. So the contention by YR about how great 90% of cops are is no longer true or even close to it. Right now I would say you are sinking down to near 50%.

First, how do you know it's 50%? Evidence? Or is this your opinion?
Second, so your friend speaks on behalf of ALL police departments?
Third, I don't even know what you're talking about or how it fits this context that you're complaining about being PC. I fail to see where that fits into this conversation.

The case against Hardy was ALWAYS weak. The only reason he was convicted in the preliminary at all was due to judicial bias which is also on the rise. Anyone trying to claim there is no double standard as regards DV is full of crap. The man is ALWAYS considered the villain because it is now the PC way of looking at things.

It's funny how other players never get charges brought against them. Don't you find that funny? How is it that Hardy is one of the few who finds a hooker/drug addict/celebrity hound and ends up getting accused of beating her?

Could it be that he lacks good judgment in selecting the type of woman he should date? Was he just looking for a good time and got taken for a ride?

See. You guys are trying to make this a LEGAL issue. But I'm not arguing the legal aspect. I'm arguing the PERSON aspect. I'm saying that the decisions people make tells you something about them. And a steady pattern of those somethings give you an insight into a person.

With the increasing politics involved in the whole legal system ( I refuse to call that mess a justice system- since determining who is guilty is no longer a priority) any high profile DV incident will have charges filed no matter how weak the evidence. You have NO witnesses except the two; you have no real physical evidence and what there was directly contradicted most of the woman's testimony; then you have the woman who was a drug user and admittedly drunk that day. Any halfway competent defense attorney would have destroyed her on the stand in a real trial. THE DA KNEW ALL THIS and that is why he dropped the case; the BS about not being able to find her to serve her is also garbage as it has come out they knew pretty much where she was and if they had WANTED to could have served her. The DA did not want to get involved in a high profile case that would almost certainly have looked really bad and resulted in an acquittal.

Again, you're arguing legal. I'm not arguing legal so I'll let you continue this argument with someone who is.

 

[Lodeus]

He's the only criminal thug in the NFL is what media seems to want us to believe.

 

[tyke1doe]

I can see you are one of those gun control nuts who blame an inanimate object for what people do. I have lots of friends who have displays of guns in their homes. Now not 500 or so but I have met a couple of people over the years who do have massive displays. Guess what genius- NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER BEEN IN TROUBLE WITH THE LAW.
Its people like you that are the problem.

You're swinging frantically now. It seems you're incapable of having a civil discussion, or you can't tolerate a disagreeing opinion, so you're lashing out.
No, I'm not a gun control nut. I support the 2nd Amendment.
But what does that have to do with my point?
I believe in the 1st Amendment. That doesn't mean I don't make judgments of a person who is always cussing and who says nasty things to people.

I think you've lost your way. Whenever people can't defeat your argument, they resort to tangential arguments, insults, stereotypes and strawmen.

I have friends who have multiple weapons too. But they don't display them in a way that reflects irresponsibility.

Furthermore, whether you like it or not, there is a sub culture of guns and the display of guns that is associated with the "gansta" lifestyle. And people make opinions of those who embrace such displays.

That has nothing to do with being PC. That has something to do with observation and evaluation. And, no, there's nothing illegal about taking pictures with guns.
But it tells a story about a person. And that, my friend, has been my point all along.

 

[tyke1doe]

But a lynch mob is not justice. The 2 guys that actually had the guns got probation, The getaway driver got time served. OJ got 33 years. Karma is not a legal standard in this country.

Right now Hardy has never committed a violent crime and telling him needs to know better presumes he was guilty of something in the past. Witten had a similar sideline outburst and it was excused and forgotten.

Sigh.

You're trying to argue legality when life is not JUST about the law.

Life goes beyond law. The way you speak to people, the way you act, who you hang out with, the company you keep, etc., all have an impact on how people view you, treat you, respect you, etc.

These are common sense observations. And I find it almost frightening that you don't realize this. But I suspect you do. You're just arguing to argue.

 

[tyke1doe]

He's the only criminal thug in the NFL is what media seems to want us to believe.

No, he's the "only criminal thug" who had a recent incident worth talking about.

Ray Rice got more attention than Hardy. AP got more attention than Hardy. Ray Lewis, when he was going through his criminal trial, got more attention than Hardy.

We're just more sensitive to it because we signed a guy who had a criminal charge in his background, and we want the media to leave him alone - hence the thread title and current discussion.

But while we want to just talk about sacks and Hardy's passion, others want to talk about him arguing with his teammates and slapping a clipboard out of his coach's hand.

Yea, free world. Yea, freedom of speech.

 

[TheDude]

Huh?
My point was based on common observations and drawing conclusions from those observations.
Do you deny that having guns strewn on a bed conveys a negative image?

No. No one would have known about the guns had there not been an incident POST the view of guns on the bed. He had all the guns legally and had never been accused of gun (or any violence). Guns werent part of any of the aftermath. It is sensational and provides a nice visual after the fact, but prior to that you would have never known Hardy owned a gun and probably thought he was a model guy. So because a legal action was discovered that you dont agree with, you form your judgement. Its your right, but classical lazy to support that gun collections is more apt to commit DV. [/quote]

Do you think guys that hook up with prostitutes, drug addicts and celebrity hounds exercise good judgment?

I really dont care what 2 consenting adults do. But puritan leftovers in society do. So now we have to condemn every rockstar (Jagger, Richards, David Lee Roth, Gene Simmons, etc.) because they bang groupies.

These aren't biases. These are observations.

ok

Or let me put it another way: Excluding that Hardy plays for the Cowboys, if you heard of anyone else dating hookers, celebrity hounds and displaying guns like he's a gansta, what would your opinion of them be?
[/quote]
ANswered. I guess we should shun Irvin, 98% of musicians, actors etc. because hookers groupies guns are all bad - thanks Mr Mackey,

Strawman argument. I wouldn't accuse your dad of killing someone because he had a picture of guns. I WOULD, however, say there's something about your dad and guns that is awfully disturbing.

Do you see the difference? When people have such a love and affinity for guns, that says something. It may tell me you're a gun nut. It may tell me you like to collect guns. But it tells me SOMETHING.

Not a strawman, Legal owning of guns is a right. If someone has them and someone snaps a picture, why would I need to care if they werent used to commit a crime or infringe on anothers right? The fact you do is your right or problem. People have been caught at airports with guns and I dont automatically assume that last coach was getting ready to highjack a plane. This really is 10x dumber than Hardy, but not as sensational.

Forming an opinion about private legal ownership says something about YOU. When you step back and think about it, I bet you 99% of people with more than 3 guns have never been accused of a violent crime. The fact you use the word "nut" really proves my point.

And that's why I said you're missing the point. You want to argue the legality of Hardy's case. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that what people do paints a picture of them. And in combination with other things people do consistent with that picture, people draw conclusions that are either favorable or unfavorable.

It has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with reputation.

So if you form a negative opinion on someone legally participating in a right, that is on you. Owning a gun does not predispose you to committing DV. So if you are using it to support the DV validity, or pure character, I think that is very lazy. The only reason you know he had guns, was the POST the DV accusation. It was sensationalism. No one would have known he had one had the incident not occurred. He probably had them for years and nothing happened. So he apparently was a nut for years that finally got his nutty gun ownership exposed.

What I'm saying makes perfectly good sense because you make the same judgments. I'm sure if you have a wife or a girlfriend and your male friend is always whistling at her or looking at her very suggestively, you're not going to simply brush that off or say, "Well, he's not committing a crime." If you're sensible, you're going to be on alert. And rightfully so.

It depends on how my significant other feels, threatened or flattered. Im not really jealous or threatened by someone finding my wife attractive. She is an adult and if she decided to stray, I cant really stop that by being jealous. If it is a creepy /accosting thing then that is different and a true strawman

Again, the things I'm saying are basic to humanity.

You still don't get it. But I can't say I didn't try.

I think I do get it. I hope for humanity to evolve and not be so concerned with everyone's private life....sadly I will not get my desire as everyone feels responsible to share their opinion on anothers personal life. .

Most people are morons and therefore most opinions are very little different than their source

 

[Sasquatch]

Having a gun and having it out does not = criminal or deranged citizen. I know many want it to be so, but its just not.

Preach it, brother. Even those smug, condescending, presumptuous critics of your right to collect 500+ weapons for personal pleasure who base their stance on the flimsy pretext of "public safety" will see the good sense and reasonableness of the position once the zombie apocalypse breaks out .... or the US government declares martial law ... or the planet is invaded by hostile aliens ... or whatever other really scary impending cataclysm that is about to befall us and thrust us into an all-out war of everyone against everyone. I scoff at those who suggest that such practices are irrational. They will get their just deserts, rest assured.

 

[Nightman]

Sigh.

These are common sense observations. And I find it almost frightening that you don't realize this. But I suspect you do. You're just arguing to argue.

Says the guy trying to hold 3 simultaneous arguments over basically nothing. You win, what people perceive is more important.

 

[tyke1doe]

No. No one would have known about the guns had there not been an incident POST the view of guns on the bed. He had all the guns legally and had never been accused of gun (or any violence). Guns werent part of any of the aftermath. It is sensational and provides a nice visual after the fact, but prior to that you would have never known Hardy owned a gun and probably thought he was a model guy. So because a legal action was discovered that you dont agree with, you form your judgement. Its your right, but classical lazy to support that gun collections is more apt to commit DV.

Wow! You're flinging straw all over the place.
Who said anything about gun collectors being more apt to commit domestic violence?
Second, you say no one would know about the gun picture, if ... And yet we DO know. However, we wouldn't have known if either Hardy or someone else didn't allow the picture to be taken. I think this kind of proves my point.

I really dont care what 2 consenting adults do. But puritan leftovers in society do. So now we have to condemn every rockstar (Jagger, Richards, David Lee Roth, Gene Simmons, etc.) because they bang groupies.
ok

Who said anything about condemning? I said the choices they make reflect who they are. Yes, the fact that men sleep with groupies says something about the values of those men. That's my point PRECISELY. It has nothing to do with being puritanical. It has EVERYTHING to do with being able to evaluate our world and the people in our world properly.

ANswered. I guess we should shun Irvin, 98% of musicians, actors etc. because hookers groupies guns are all bad - thanks Mr Mackey,

I love how you jump to conclusions. Who said anything about shunning them? I said we know who they are based on what they do. We know who Irvin is/was based on the choices he made.

Not a strawman, Legal owning of guns is a right. If someone has them and someone snaps a picture, why would I need to care if they werent used to commit a crime or infringe on anothers right? The fact you do is your right or problem. People have been caught at airports with guns and I dont automatically assume that last coach was getting ready to highjack a plane. This really is 10x dumber than Hardy, but not as sensational.

Do you know what a strawman is? Please tell me what one is because you're building an army.

Forming an opinion about private legal ownership says something about YOU. When you step back and think about it, I bet you 99% of people with more than 3 guns have never been accused of a violent crime. The fact you use the word "nut" really proves my point.

Yes, it does say something about me. It says that I can evaluate information properly and in its context.
Second, I don't believe I used the word "nut" first. Go back and reread the post.
Third, you offer percentages, so you want to give me any proof of this? Again, I have no argument about gun ownership. That's your baliwick.
Fourth, I'm glad you're now agreeing with me in my assertion that what people do and say tells you something about them.

So if you form a negative opinion on someone legally participating in a right, that is on you.

Of course it is. Just like when some swears or cusses and I form a negative opinion of them.

Owning a gun does not predispose you to committing DV. So if you are using it to support the DV validity, or pure character, I think that is very lazy. The only reason you know he had guns, was the POST the DV accusation. It was sensationalism. No one would have known he had one had the incident not occurred. He probably had them for years and nothing happened. So he apparently was a nut for years that finally got his nutty gun ownership exposed.

Strawman, strawman, itchy, witchy strawman.

It depends on how my significant other feels, threatened or flattered. Im not really jealous or threatened by someone finding my wife attractive. She is an adult and if she decided to stray, I cant really stop that by being jealous. If it is a creepy /accosting thing then that is different and a true strawman

You don't even know what a strawman is. The fact that you said if your friend is staring at your wife "creepy" then that's different suggests you wouldn't be okay with it, even though it's legal. Thank you for proving my point. Oh, and go look up the definition of a strawman. You're not using it correctly.

I think I do get it. I hope for humanity to evolve and not be so concerned with everyone's private life....sadly I will not get my desire as everyone feels responsible to share their opinion on anothers personal life.

And maybe humanity will evolve again to realize that if people want private things to remain private, they won't take steps to let everyone know their business.
The nature of privacy is that no one knows, but you and those who guard your privacy. Once it becomes public and once you do something to facilitate it becoming a public matter, you can't complain about people getting all in your business.

Most people are morons and therefore most opinions are very little different than their source

Let me guess. You're a part of the minority that is smarter than the rest?

 

[KJJ]

Hardy has some real issues. Think about it he just came back from being suspended for an assault charge spending months under heavy scrutiny and now he's putting his hands on a coach during a game in front of millions of people. It shows the lack of control this guy has. A lot of other teams would have suspended him for touching a coach but the Cowboys are blowing it off as just passion. That's BS!

He was lucky to get an opportunity to play again and here he is losing his temper putting his hands on a coach during a game. This won't be the last problem we have with him hopefully he's receiving counseling. Getting angry is fine all players get pissed during games but when you see a player put their hands on coach that's a problem!

 

[StylisticS]

the media did the same thing with Dez. THEN came the "sideline blowup" and Dez was the new TeamObliterator and blah blah blah... until the audio came out and they all had to eat crow.

WFAA released an audio and the media is still on their witch hunt. I mean anybody that you can think of is saying something.

 

[TheDude]

Wow! You're flinging straw all over the place.
Who said anything about gun collectors being more apt to commit domestic violence?
Second, you say no one would know about the gun picture, if ... And yet we DO know. However, we wouldn't have known if either Hardy or someone else didn't allow the picture to be taken. I think this kind of proves my point.

Dude, you are scarecrow and about ready to be eaten by a cow

Who said anything about condemning? I said the choices they make reflect who they are. Yes, the fact that men sleep with groupies says something about the values of those men. That's my point PRECISELY. It has nothing to do with being puritanical. It has EVERYTHING to do with being able to evaluate our world and the people in our world properly.

It says something about your values and the glass house you live in that is all.

I love how you jump to conclusions. Who said anything about shunning them? I said we know who they are based on what they do. We know who Irvin is/was based on the choices he made.



Do you know what a strawman is? Please tell me what one is because you're building an army.

Yeah. I dont know what a strawman is but you are equating whistling at you wife, pre-marital sex and any other puritanical superstition into forming opinions.

all i can say is

Yes, it does say something about me. It says that I can evaluate information properly and in its context.

in context, yup. Fully

Second, I don't believe I used the word "nut" first. Go back and reread the post.
Third, you offer percentages, so you want to give me any proof of this? Again, I have no argument about gun ownership. That's your baliwick.

No no arguement as long as people own them and ensure they satisify your ever shifting standard that the media tells you to have

Fourth, I'm glad you're now agreeing with me in my assertion that what people do and say tells you something about them.

NO what Im saying is what people do doesnt always have to sanitized to satisfy your judgements. The fact that you spend so much time and feeling it is your duty to form half-story judgements on everything must be exhausting. You are prosecution's dream juror

Of course it is. Just like when some swears or cusses and I form a negative opinion of them.

well there goes 99% of the population. At least you admit you think negative of every football player on the team

Strawman, strawman, itchy, witchy strawman.

You don't even know what a strawman is. The fact that you said if your friend is staring at your wife "creepy" then that's different suggests you wouldn't be okay with it, even though it's legal. Thank you for proving my point. Oh, and go look up the definition of a strawman. You're not using it correctly.

You strike my as a very sheltered and unconfident person. I said if "She" flet is was creepy. My definition of creepy is somewhat irrelvant. Of course this whole scenario that I would have a friend who would want to hit on my wife isnt a ridicuous strawman or anything [let me insert emoji]

And maybe humanity will evolve again to realize that if people want private things to remain private, they won't take steps to let everyone know their business.
The nature of privacy is that no one knows, but you and those who guard your privacy. Once it becomes public and once you do something to facilitate it becoming a public matter, you can't complain about people getting all in your business.

The picture was in his apartment, he didnt ask for it to be public. He entrusted people. But his trust didnt meet your standard so blast away.

You must also be a fan of Star and National Enquierer, hey even though Brad Pitt is having a picnic in a park with his kids, take 1000 pics becasue "Hey its public"

Let me guess. You're a part of the minority that is smarter than the rest?

Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice - Churchill
I havent a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming vices whatsoever. - Twain
I have no confidence in a man whose faults you cannot see - Dahlberg

 

[camelboy]

It was disgusting when they (especially espn) grabbed that "guns blazzin" quote and made a big deal of it for 2-3 days .. as if no one ever used the term .. I could swear I heard it like 100 times on espy itself.... And when I hear Chris Carter talking about morals and the right thing to do.. it makes me want to throw up after that disgusting video of his where he was talking to rookies about the fall guy ...

 

[Bleu Star]

Did anyone notice how passive Garrett was during the Hardy tirade? He was less than 5 feet away and stood there and watched as if he were a waterboy. Just curious if anyone else noticed that.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Hardy has some real issues. Think about it he just came back from being suspended for an assault charge spending months under heavy scrutiny and now he's putting his hands on a coach during a game in front of millions of people. It shows the lack of control this guy has. A lot of other teams would have suspended him for touching a coach but the Cowboys are blowing it off as just passion. That's BS!

He was lucky to get an opportunity to play again and here he is losing his temper putting his hands on a coach during a game. This won't be the last problem we have with him hopefully he's receiving counseling. Getting angry is fine all players get pissed during games but when you see a player put their hands on coach that's a problem!

Even if we sign him again it wouldn't surprise me if this didn't end well.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Did anyone notice how passive Garrett was during the Hardy tirade? He was less than 5 feet away and stood there and watched as if he were a waterboy. Just curious if anyone else noticed that.

I'm surprised he didn't clap. lol

 

[Sasquatch]

Did anyone notice how passive Garrett was during the Hardy tirade? He was less than 5 feet away and stood there and watched as if he were a waterboy. Just curious if anyone else noticed that.

Are you insinuating something?

 

[Bleu Star]

I'm surprised he didn't clap. lol

Seriously. Didn't you find that strange? He is the head coach. This is his team. Yet he stands there and watches it happen like a spectator from just a few feet away. Strangely passive.

 

[Bleu Star]

Are you insinuating something?

Lol nah. It's just strange.