Rob's House

I think he's guilty and it looks like the evidence shows it by more than a preponderance. I'm just criticizing the use of that standard for punishment generally, not because I think Brady's being judged unfairly.

I'm fully aware of the burden of proof in civil cases (and being found liable for wrongful death is not the same thing as being found guilty of murder). I just don't think that's an appropriate standard for imposing punishments regardless of whether the law allows it.

On what theory could Hargrove recover?

Pretty crappy standard when determining guilt, IMO, but at least in this instance it's related to something that actually impacts the game, so I find it more acceptable than when King Goodell uses this chicken **** standard to determine guilt and punishment for conduct unrelated to league activities.

I'd like to see Mayweather box in a 10 x 10 ring wearing Mexican style gloves in a bout with no rounds, no clock, and no points. Somehow I don't think he fares so well under those rules.

I think one of my friends might be one. He does seem to care about a select few people, but I don't know if he has any genuine empathy for anyone. He pretty shamelessly conned or took advantage of about anyone He could in his late teens and early 20s, including people who did a lot to help him. He's gotten a lot better about that stuff, but that might just be because he wants to maintain relationships for his own gratification rather than for any concern for the well being of others.

The danger in this thinking is it makes dead kids a good cover. If you're going to try to pull off something sinister and you don't want anyone asking questions just make sure your plan involves dead kids and a plausible explanation and no one will dare dig any deeper for fear of incurring the scorn of others.

My wife walked in on me and suddenly got all hot and bothered. Don't know what that was all about.

I would agree if Cooper displayed the same behavior and conduct that caused the others to be released (which he may have, for all I know), but if Cooper's a good soldier who is respectful of the coach and the other guys are a pain in the ass, it seems awfully arbitrary to assume racial motivations. FTR, I don't really have a problem with what McCoy said because I wasn't in the Eagles locker room and don't know how things transpired. I take issue with others who know as little about the situation as I do who are assuming racial motivations when the evidence they have suggesting that is flimsy at best.

I'm not going to tell someone what they should or shouldn't like, but I'm curious as to where you find value in the Riley Cooper comparisons. Are you suggesting that anyone who retains a player who was caught using "the n word" is presumptively racist? Or are you drawing some connection between the retention of Cooper and the dismissal & trade of Jackson and McCoy? If it's the latter can you explain the connection, because I haven't seen anyone do so here or elsewhere?

I was too busy to follow the news during Sandy Hook, so I have no frame of reference about any of this. I do, however, have a problem with the way every conspiracy theory is automatically dismissed out of hand and the theorist labelled a nut. I do think most conspiracy theories are bull **** and most conspiracy theorists are nuts, but this approach gives good cover to anyone who does pull off a conspiracy.

I hate Brady and the Pats* as much as anyone, but if I'm looking at this objectively I think the outrage is a bit overblown (although such is the nature of outrage). If the Bills got caught doing this I'd think it was cheap, but I doubt I'd think lengthy suspensions are in order. They say if you aren't cheating you aren't trying. I know it's said somewhat tongue in cheek, but there's an element of truth to it too. Obviously there's a line somewhere between minor pine tar on a baseball type stuff and serious cheating like pulling a Tonya Harding. Maybe this crosses that line, but I feel like it's closer to pine tar than paying off the refs.

I'm not sure which post you're referring to.

Wow. I never thought I'd see liberals admitting their policies have created the problems they rail against. I'm impressed with the open honesty and introspection here. Cheers.

Aaand we have a new leader.

I was just adding context to the concept of circumstantial evidence, not providing a commentary on how this particular situation will or should play out.

In a criminal trial, to secure a conviction based upon purely circumstantial evidence there can be no reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt.

What logical fallacy is that?

That was the point of my post. Sorry if it was too nuanced for you. I'm pretty sure NoSaint wasn't claiming to know the outcome either, but rather (I assume) was stating that there is no publicly known evidence upon which anyone could responsibly call him a suspect at this point.

I suppose that's possible insofar as young guys with below median IQs and preconceived notions of racism may latch onto it, but I don't think any reasonably rational and intelligent people would take much away from that.

I watched a murder trial once where the guy was convicted of killing his ex after the child was born and before the paternity test came back, allegedly because he was concerned about having to pay child support. If I thought like a lot of people do I would assume he's guilty because it fits my narrative.

It has nothing to do with whether I agree; it has to do with lacking a logical connection between the premise and the conclusion. If you can explain how Riley Cooper fits into any of this, I'm all ears.

Looks like musichunch didn't hold the crown for long.

This is the dumbest thing I've read this week. And I read some of gatorman's posts this morning. What does Riley Cooper still being there have to do with anything? Is he a loud guy who gives the coach a lot of push back?