|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jan 31, 2015 15:42:20 GMT -5
No matter how one tries and spin this, that LSU coach comes across as a double standard hypocrite I want an honest to god answer, had she went to PSU or Texas instead of nebraska, would you be saying the same thing. Be honest.
|
|
|
Post by MTC on Jan 31, 2015 16:06:44 GMT -5
No matter how one tries and spin this, that LSU coach comes across as a double standard hypocrite I want an honest to god answer, had she went to PSU or Texas instead of nebraska, would you be saying the same thing. Be honest. This is going to be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on Jan 31, 2015 19:28:02 GMT -5
No matter how one tries and spin this, that LSU coach comes across as a double standard hypocrite I want an honest to god answer, had she went to PSU or Texas instead of nebraska, would you be saying the same thing. Be honest. I just think until all the facts are laid out on the table this is still up for debate. Holman is not screaming unfair, and maybe she is taking the high road.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 20:36:08 GMT -5
I want an honest to god answer, had she went to PSU or Texas instead of nebraska, would you be saying the same thing. Be honest. I just think until all the facts are laid out on the table this is still up for debate. Holman is not screaming unfair, and maybe she is taking the high road. #FreeBrianaHolman gives the impression that she sees some unfairness, which is good because there is.
|
|
|
Post by redincolorado on Feb 2, 2015 17:19:38 GMT -5
No matter how one tries and spin this, that LSU coach comes across as a double standard hypocrite I want an honest to god answer, had she went to PSU or Texas instead of nebraska, would you be saying the same thing. Be honest. Of course I would. This has nothing to do with where she chose to transfer to and everything to do with the LSU coach having it one way for a player leaving and another way for a player coming.
|
|
|
Post by #skoskers on Feb 2, 2015 17:29:30 GMT -5
No matter how one tries and spin this, that LSU coach comes across as a double standard hypocrite I want an honest to god answer, had she went to PSU or Texas instead of nebraska, would you be saying the same thing. Be honest. Absolutely. The destination school is irrelevant. Had this occurred at Texas, PSU, Washington, or Wisconsin, it still would have been unfair.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Feb 2, 2015 18:51:48 GMT -5
I want an honest to god answer, had she went to PSU or Texas instead of nebraska, would you be saying the same thing. Be honest. Absolutely. The destination school is irrelevant. Had this occurred at Texas, PSU, Washington, or Wisconsin, it still would have been unfair. The two events appear related, but actually are not, except in a moral high zone. Each transfer request was decided separately and independently of each other, and each decision is allowed and valid under the NCAA rules. There is no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to self-impose a standard that is discretionary (e.g., I won't accept transfers that have been released because I denied a release.) It's no different than taking advantage of a legal tax break or tax benefit--for the most part, it is a practical matter, not an ethical one.
|
|
|
Post by #skoskers on Feb 3, 2015 11:40:13 GMT -5
Absolutely. The destination school is irrelevant. Had this occurred at Texas, PSU, Washington, or Wisconsin, it still would have been unfair. The two events appear related, but actually are not, except in a moral high zone. Each transfer request was decided separately and independently of each other, and each decision is allowed and valid under the NCAA rules. There is no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to self-impose a standard that is discretionary (e.g., I won't accept transfers that have been released because I denied a release.) It's no different than taking advantage of a legal tax break or tax benefit--for the most part, it is a practical matter, not an ethical one. I think you meant to reply to someone else. This is twice now that you've replied to me with something outside the scope of what I'm even saying.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Feb 3, 2015 11:50:53 GMT -5
Absolutely. The destination school is irrelevant. Had this occurred at Texas, PSU, Washington, or Wisconsin, it still would have been unfair. The two events appear related, but actually are not, except in a moral high zone. Each transfer request was decided separately and independently of each other, and each decision is allowed and valid under the NCAA rules. There is no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to self-impose a standard that is discretionary (e.g., I won't accept transfers that have been released because I denied a release.) It's no different than taking advantage of a legal tax break or tax benefit--for the most part, it is a practical matter, not an ethical one. I understand your point, I am not sure I agree. To me the better comparison would be taking a stand against a legal tax break, and also taking advantage of it.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Feb 3, 2015 12:59:23 GMT -5
The two events appear related, but actually are not, except in a moral high zone. Each transfer request was decided separately and independently of each other, and each decision is allowed and valid under the NCAA rules. There is no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to self-impose a standard that is discretionary (e.g., I won't accept transfers that have been released because I denied a release.) It's no different than taking advantage of a legal tax break or tax benefit--for the most part, it is a practical matter, not an ethical one. I understand your point, I am not sure I agree. To me the better comparison would be taking a stand against a legal tax break, and also taking advantage of it. Your example is an example of hypocrisy. That would seem to be your argument. My argument is that it's not necessarily unethical or hypocritical, and my example reflects that.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Feb 3, 2015 13:02:22 GMT -5
I understand your point, I am not sure I agree. To me the better comparison would be taking a stand against a legal tax break, and also taking advantage of it. Your example is an example of hypocrisy. That would seem to be your argument. My argument is that it's not necessarily unethical or hypocritical, and my example reflects that. I don't think we are on very different sides of this. Can hypocrisy (saying one thing, doing another) be unethical? It probably would be all in how you define it.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Feb 3, 2015 13:49:36 GMT -5
Your example is an example of hypocrisy. That would seem to be your argument. My argument is that it's not necessarily unethical or hypocritical, and my example reflects that. I don't think we are on very different sides of this. Can hypocrisy (saying one thing, doing another) be unethical? It probably would be all in how you define it. I believe hypocrisy, by definition, is always unethical. I just don't believe it's inherently hypocritical or unethical to choose from among a set of circumstances that have been presented to you, as is the case when the NCAA rules create that condition. That is a basic tenet of philosophy or normative ethics known as utilitarianism, espoused by John Stuart Mills. I think you tend to gravitate towards a more absolutist definition of ethical choices (right is right), which is often treated as the opposite spectrum and best exemplified by Emmanuelle Kant. I actually prefer Kant too, but I consider myself a pragmatic altruist.
|
|
|
Post by #skoskers on Feb 3, 2015 15:10:55 GMT -5
Immanuel Kant wouldn't see Fran as someone who "Act(s) only according to that maxim whereby (she) can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." That is, if she's against releasing a player but accepts and benefits from another released transfer, regardless of how the NCAA regulates transfers, she is operating under her own maxim, and, as such, it's certainly not universally binding. Remember, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.
Also, if she took Mill's utilitarian (less deontological and more consequential) approach, where the ends justify the means, the greatest good (a released, incoming transfer from SD) for the greatest amount of people (her LSU squad) may be true, but the denial of Holman's release, in principle, isn't serving a greater good for Nebraska (or any school to which she could have transferred) or Holman herself--or LSU's sand team, as Nebraska's sand teams won't even face LSU's sand teams or vie for a nonexistent NCAA sand championship. It's self-serving, in that sense, that the supposed greater good of not releasing Holman for sand benefits just Fran.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Feb 3, 2015 15:13:25 GMT -5
yeah, i think this is now getting over-intellectualized.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Feb 3, 2015 15:18:04 GMT -5
"Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable."
|
|