Imus be an idiot . . .

[Dustin Kesselberg]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2517907#post2517907

It was if most people associated "ho" with women remember.

Either you're right or you're wrong in your definitions of "ho". I conceded that the "Urban dictionary" might be valid in the previous post but now you're just contradicting yourself. Either "ho" means a man or a woman who has sex for money (per the dictionary) or it means any number of things listed in the "urban dictionary". If it means "a man or a woman who has sex for money" then my previous posts are right about that fact. If it means any number of things expressed in the "urban dictionary" then my previous post is still right due to the fact that damages must be demonstrated. "Hurt feelings" wouldn't fit that criteria.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Argument from popular opinion. Fallacy.

Wrong. When it comes to the popular definition of slang, the popular opinion is the most important factor.

 

[Tailgater]

It doesn't matter what "the rest of society" thinks. The only thing that matters is how Imus used the word. Many of the definitions from that site consider "ho" to simply be a woman who is unfaithful or untrustworthy not a "prostitute.

So your giving up on defending that most people consider "ho" offensive to woman and now saying it is offensive in a different way to a woman than being a prostitute. Nice way to slither out of it.

A "defemation(sic) of character" lawsuit would never fly for many of the reasons explained by me already concerning their actual nappy hair and the fact that "ho" doesn't necessarily mean a prostitute but someone untrustworthy which is of course subjective. Moreover, damages must be demonstrated. "Hurt feelings" wouldn't fit that criteria.

It wouldn't fly, but I have no problem with them trying. If Imus had you as his attorney, it would be the longest trial in history. (I think that is a compliment for defense attorneys).

 

[Tailgater]

Either you're right or you're wrong in your definitions of "ho". I conceded that the "Urban dictionary" might be valid in the previous post but now you're just contradicting yourself. Either "ho" means a man or a woman who has sex for money (per the dictionary) or it means any number of things listed in the "urban dictionary". If it means "a man or a woman who has sex for money" then my previous posts are right about that fact. If it means any number of things expressed in the "urban dictionary" then my previous post is still right due to the fact that damages must be demonstrated. "Hurt feelings" wouldn't fit that criteria.

That makes absolutely no sense from the link-

Originally Posted by Tailgater
In reality, most people associate those words with women.

Proof?

Originally Posted by Tailgater
The comments were directed exclusively toward a group of women. If you say fat person, most people think any fat person. When someone says "ho", most people think of a woman.

Proof?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That makes absolutely no sense from the link-

Originally Posted by Tailgater
In reality, most people associate those words with women.

Proof?

Originally Posted by Tailgater
The comments were directed exclusively toward a group of women. If you say fat person, most people think any fat person. When someone says "ho", most people think of a woman.

Proof?

You were using my post as proof that Imus could be sued. I said that if my post was wrong (as you were claiming) then Imus couldn't be sued.

 

[Tailgater]

You were using my post as proof that Imus could be sued. I said that if my post was wrong (as you were claiming) then Imus couldn't be sued.

Anyone can be sued for anything. It doesn't mean they would win. I even said I didn't think he needed to be fired. It wouldn't bother me if he had to pay up in a civil suit.

 

[Tailgater]

You were using my post as proof that Imus could be sued. I said that if my post was wrong (as you were claiming) then Imus couldn't be sued.

In no way did I do such a thing.

 

[Tailgater]

I conceded

Since when?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Anyone can be sued for anything. It doesn't mean they would win. I even said I didn't think he needed to be fired. It wouldn't bother me if he had to pay up in a civil suit.

It would bother me, due to the fact such a suit would be baseless.

Since when?

Since post 693, It was a concession for arguments sake to point out how (if you were indeed claiming that Imus could successfully be sued) it would not work.

The arguement is if the term is popular opinion. That fallacy does not apply here. That site is a sampling of popular opinion.

How's that the argument? I thought the argument was the proper definition of the term. Not what the editors of that site thought.

 

[Lonewulf]

How's that the argument? I thought the argument was the proper definition of the term. Not what the editors of that site thought.

No, slang and public references are dependant on public definitions of terms.

 

[Tailgater]

Since post 693, It was a concession for arguments sake to point out how (if you were indeed claiming that Imus could successfully be sued) it would not work.

There was no arguement to concede. I made one comment in this entire thread one page ago that I didn't care if he got sued, but didn't think he should be fired. Somehow, you have twisted that into your arguement with me about most people considering a "ho" to be a woman.

How's that the argument? I thought the argument was the proper definition of the term. Not what the editors of that site thought.

Sigh.

Tailgater-
In reality, most people associate those words with women.

Dustin-
Proof?

Tailgater-
The comments were directed exclusively toward a group of women. If you say fat person, most people think any fat person. When someone says "ho", most people think of a woman.

Dustin-
Proof?

Then I show you a site with an overwhelming majority of people who consider this to be so.

You then post-

Argument from popular opinion. Fallacy.

Then I post-

The arguement is if the term is popular opinion. That fallacy does not apply here. That site is a sampling of popular opinion.

and the loop continues with-

How's that the argument? I thought the argument was the proper definition of the term. Not what the editors of that site thought.

and I have no idea how you came up with that.

 

[Lonewulf]

^----*

*Hey, Dustin? You wanted evidence that you were a waste of time?

This is your proof.

Have a nice day,

Lonewulf.

 

[bob_kark]

He was parroting black culture? Really? I was not under that impression.

IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had.*

*referring to School Daze, which included the song "Straight and Nappy"

Seems like it to me.

Who's "we"? I'm not firing anyone, MSNBC fired him. They could easily have chosen not to. It was all up to them; there was no force behind it.

Sure, there was some boycott that Al Sharpton came up with, but a boycott is only effective in one of two conditions:

1) There is enough in the boycott for the company to risk losing massive amounts of profit.

2) The boycott seems to be far more effective than it really is.

It seems to be 2, in this case. The company (and more specifically their investors) perceived a feint, took it as a direct and deadly attack, responded, and Don Imus got fired for it.

Though I agree with Randfan that emotions were overly charged in this situation, and Al Sharpton attempted to charge them even more. Regardless, if I put blame anywhere, it's on MSNBC and their investors, notably the latter. They chickened out and weren't willing to stand behind their man.

However, if the people that hired any of those people that you just mentioned decided to fire them, then I support their right to.

While they may have had every legal right to fire him, I don't believe they acted ethically in this matter. Also, Sharpton and Jackson's efforts in this matter were reprehensible.

 

[RandFan]

While they may have had every legal right to fire him, I don't believe they acted ethically in this matter. Also, Sharpton and Jackson's efforts in this matter were reprehensible.

Thanks, I've been pretty much alone on this one for the past few days.

 

[bob_kark]

Thanks, I've been pretty much alone on this one for the past few days.

I'll always support the Mormon Atheist movement.

 

[Lonewulf]

While they may have had every legal right to fire him, I don't believe they acted ethically in this matter.

We'll have to disagree here. From what I know, Imus has made himself a liability in the past, and has brought controversy to the table continual times (he's faced potential lawsuits for defamation of character and slander before, I believe).

The sponsors backed out, so MSNBC were facing severe monetary losses. I really don't think that they had much of a choice. Personally, I think that if you want to talk ethics, the sponsors are the ones that face most of the blame. MSNBC can't run on rainbows and dreamstuff, it needs that moolah. They had to do a cost-benefit analysis, and I don't think that the benefits of keeping Imus on matched their view of the cost of keeping him on. I won't state that they were exact in their measurements, and in fact they may have overestimated the issue considerably. I do not know; I don't have the spreadsheets of sponsors with me, or anything like that. Honestly, I don't know enough to say anything definitively.

Also, Sharpton and Jackson's efforts in this matter were reprehensible.

Boycotting I don't consider reprehensible.

Taking a highly emotionally charged state of mind, and then making it more charged? Yeah, I can see that, and I'd agree.

 

[RandFan]

I'll always support the Mormon Atheist movement.

 

[bob_kark]

We'll have to disagree here. From what I know, Imus has made himself a liability in the past, and has brought controversy to the table continual times (he's faced potential lawsuits for defamation of character and slander before, I believe).

The sponsors backed out, so MSNBC were facing severe monetary losses. I really don't think that they had much of a choice. Personally, I think that if you want to talk ethics, the sponsors are the ones that face most of the blame. MSNBC can't run on rainbows and dreamstuff, it needs that moolah. They had to do a cost-benefit analysis, and I don't think that the benefits of keeping Imus on matched their view of the cost of keeping him on. I won't state that they were exact in their measurements, and in fact they may have overestimated the issue considerably. I do not know; I don't have the spreadsheets of sponsors with me, or anything like that. Honestly, I don't know enough to say anything definitively.

Perhaps had they stood up for the man who had made them millions over the years, they woudn't have lost as many sponsors. Instead, made a decision to join the media circus and allow Jackson and Sharpton to parade around as ambassadors to the African American community.

Boycotting I don't consider reprehensible.

Taking a highly emotionally charged state of mind, and then making it more charged? Yeah, I can see that, and I'd agree.

What they did was to take a situation, and spin it out of control for their own gain. It's the same tactic O'Reilly used to have Pepsi drop Ludachris, christians used to attempt to block The Last Temptation of Christ from being shown, etc... It's a form of moral censorship the minority uses over the majority. While every consumer has the right to choose what product they want to buy, this is a petty attempt to blackmail a company into doing their bidding.

 

[Lonewulf]

Perhaps had they stood up for the man who had made them millions over the years, they woudn't have lost as many sponsors.

Huh? The sponsors left before MSNBC let him go.

Sounds like you're putting your own little spin on it. It was my impression that the sponsors pulled out when they saw Imus as a liability, not MSNBC not protecting Imus.

Instead, made a decision to join the media circus and allow Jackson and Sharpton to parade around as ambassadors to the African American community.

"Allow"? They "allowed" Sharpton to "parade around"?

It sounds as if you're suggesting that MSNBC should have taken measures to "shut Jackson up"...

It's a form of moral censorship the minority uses over the majority. While every consumer has the right to choose what product they want to buy, this is a petty attempt to blackmail a company into doing their bidding.

Meh, boycotting really doesn't mean much without strength or adequate timing behind it. Sharpton used adequate timing, but the problem with boycotting is that it's only really effective when a large majority of those that buy the product pull out. Otherwise, it's just a feint. Certain people took the feint, and they're partly responsible for that.

 

[bob_kark]

Huh? The sponsors left before MSNBC let him go.

Sounds like you're putting your own little spin on it. It was my impression that the sponsors pulled out when they saw Imus as a liability, not MSNBC not protecting Imus.

Sure, some may have left. However, had CBS or MSNBC stood up for them, I doubt the loss would have been as bad. Instead, they threw him under the bus to save their own posteriors. Admittedly, it's expected. But, I still feel it is unethical.

"Allow"? They "allowed" Sharpton to "parade around"?

It sounds as if you're suggesting that MSNBC should have taken measures to "shut Jackson up"...

They aired it. They did so in a fairly one sided manner as well. While I don't watch the news 24/7, I've yet to see an opposing viewpoint in the matter. So, when I say allow, I mean that they allow them to do so without any objectivity.

Meh, boycotting really doesn't mean much without strength or adequate timing behind it. Sharpton used adequate timing, but the problem with boycotting is that it's only really effective when a large majority of those that buy the product pull out. Otherwise, it's just a feint. Certain people took the feint, and they're partly responsible for that.

While the impact to the company can be negligable if the boycot doesn't carry sufficient support, the company rarely takes the risk. Should the companies themselves carry some of the blame? Absolutely. However, the majority should rest on the shoulders of the individuals who're abusing this situation for their own gain.