Tim Hardaway: "I hate gay people" - Page 11

Ultra Peanut · 02-14-2007, 09:17 PM

http://www.sportech.info/2007/02/14/...es-gay-people/

Also, it's apparently impossible for a gay person to be a good basketball player.

**ChiTown** · 02-15-2007, 01:41 PM

151 (and counting) posts over some idiot that didn't have enough self-control to keep his opinion of gays to himself. We are a bunch of sensitive sandy giners, aren't we?

htismaqe · 02-15-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Google: 'criminal' 'conspiracy' 'elements.'

Might add "overt act"

I'm just asking honestly, I don't have any idea how it's viewed.

What constitutes an overt act? Wouldn't getting together in secret and discussing plans to commit a crime constitue an "overt act"?

Groves · 02-15-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

You assume wrong.
Making plans isn't a crime, not until you take affirmative steps to carry out a criminal act.

Pardon my saying, but I think *you* assume wrong.

I didn't say it was a crime or a criminal act, I was refuting his statement that it wasn't "his business, or the business of a government."

I think the real proof is in the pudding anyway. Finding out two people have been plotting or planning against your family in the real world would quickly be (appropriately) thought of as "our business" by virtually everyone here. And wrong to boot.

Not grounds for arrest, as you've pointed out, but sure as heck wrong.

Maybe I'm off...this is the planet after all. We don't respond typically. That's cool.

**Baby Lee** · 02-15-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groves

Pardon my saying, but I think *you* assume wrong.

I didn't say it was a crime or a criminal act, I was refuting his statement that it wasn't "his business, or the business of a government."

I think the real proof is in the pudding anyway. Finding out two people have been plotting or planning against your family in the real world would quickly be (appropriately) thought of as "our business" by virtually everyone here. And wrong to boot.

Not grounds for arrest, as you've pointed out, but sure as heck wrong.

Maybe I'm off...this is the planet after all. We don't respond typically. That's cool.

Even if you're rock solid sure that 2 people are making plans against you in their bedroom, it's still not the government's business, so long as it's just making plans.
It may the the government's business to offer you protection, and monitor their activities in public spaces, and arrest them if they begin enacting their plans. They might even convince a judge it's their business to inspect their bedroom's contents to make sure there is nothing that would allow them to carry out their plans undetected.

Skyy God · 02-15-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I'm just asking honestly, I don't have any idea how it's viewed.

What constitutes an overt act? Wouldn't getting together in secret and discussing plans to commit a crime constitute an "overt act"?

Not in Kansas, at least.

5. Conversations among co-conspirators in forming and planning the conspiracy are not overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy.

http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctap...0212/79023.htm

Using the psycho astronaut example, let's say that she plotted with a friend about kidnapping the romantic rival. Something like buying rubber tubing would be considered an overt act.

Skyy God · 02-15-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Even if you're rock solid sure that 2 people are making plans against you in their bedroom, it's still not the government's business, so long as it's just making plans.

BL, what's your reasoning behind this? My understanding is that Shabani allowed the overt act element to be discretionary, meaining that plotting alone is enough.

Groves · 02-15-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Even if you're rock solid sure that 2 people are making plans against you in their bedroom, it's still not the government's business, so long as it's just making plans.

I think you make great points.

I guess I was pointing out the ridiculousness of thinking that just because two people are in the privacy of their room, that morality ceases to exist. My examples illustrated that it's both peoples AND governments business, depending.

The family examples were to show how we don't really buy the "consenting adults" line when it comes to the planning of harm to our families. It surely is our business.

The terrorist acts example was an example of how it IS the governments business when people are plotting to assassinate the prez or planning to bomb a stadium, etc.

I agree, it's not something that you can arrest them for. Nobody can watch "Cape Fear" or "Pacific Heights" (both fictional movies, I realize), and say that the bad guys aren't bad even before they've acted upon their plans.

We're talking about the difference between legal and right.

You are correct, nobody can arrest you for it.

FringeNC · 02-15-2007, 02:24 PM

Hardaway's comments make you wonder about the whole "gays in the military" thing. Moral posturing aside, if indeed there are a lot of guys in the military that share Hardaway's views on gays, would it be wise to allow homosexuals?

The fact that gays cannot come out of the closet in pro sports seems to indicate to me that we are a long way from being able to allow them to be overtly gay in the military.

By the way, my view is that the job of the military is to kill hostiles, not be an institution of social engineering.

htismaqe · 02-15-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Hardaway's comments make you wonder about the whole "gays in the military" thing. Moral posturing aside, if indeed there are a lot of guys in the military that share Hardaway's views on gays, would it be wise to allow homosexuals?

The fact that gays cannot come out of the closet in pro sports seems to indicate to me that we are a long way from being able to allow them to be overtly gay in the military.

By the way, my view is that the job of the military is to kill hostiles, not be an institution of social engineering.

I have to believe that social engineering is an evitable by-product of attempting to get thousands of people to function in 100% unison.

FringeNC · 02-15-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I have to believe that social engineering is an evitable by-product of attempting to get thousands of people to function in 100% unison.

Cultivating esprit de corps and social engineering aren't the same thing, are they?

**Baby Lee** · 02-15-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pittsie

BL, what's your reasoning behind this? My understanding is that Shabani allowed the overt act element to be discretionary, meaining that plotting alone is enough.

It's been quite a while since I even glanced at the crimlaw side, I'm probably mixing up statutory conspiracy and CL conspiracy.
I'll defer to your recollection.

htismaqe · 02-15-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FringeNC

Cultivating esprit de corps and social engineering aren't the same thing, are they?

Maybe. I was just thinking out loud.

Anytime you're trying to get that many people to function identically, I think you're inevitably going to have to "engineer" their thinking to some extent.

Ultra Peanut · 02-15-2007, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frazod

And as usual, any excuse to hop up and down screaming HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED always seems to make UP's day. You and TJ should start a club.

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Unfortunately, I think that's what all of this boils down to. And I've always like Psi.

What the ****ing shit?

Provide some examples, assclowns.

I saw this story on another site, laughed, and posted it here. The very same process occurred with this thread, this thread, this thread, and this thread. Tim Hardaway flaunting his stupidity to an audience is amusing, not upsetting. Engaging in a discussion with morons who seek to defend him because they also harbor irrational fears/hatred of people that are different from them is hardly whining about being repressed.

GOLLY GEE, SOMEONE IS IN A HEATED DEBATE! WHAT AN ATTENTION WHORE!

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It wouldn't have been posted the same way, IMO. Of course, you haven't seen some of the stuff that's been posted by UP in the threads of a person who is no longer here.

Beating a dead horse is putting it mildly.

What does this even refer to?

**Reaper16** · 02-15-2007, 03:08 PM

Psi is taking a whole lot of shit for, like, no reason at all. I don't get it.

Frazod · 02-15-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultra Peanut

Provide some examples, assclowns.

You're kidding, right?

Just search for your posts, and start reading anywhere.

02-14-2007, 09:17 PM
Ultra Peanut v^V^v^V^v^V^ Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Holland* Casino cash: $10005177	Tim Hardaway: "I hate gay people" http://www.sportech.info/2007/02/14/...es-gay-people/ Also, it's apparently impossible for a gay person to be a good basketball player.
Posts: 39,518

02-15-2007, 01:41 PM	#151
ChiTown Stroking to the SB Champs! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Flatlands of Kansas Casino cash: $2783962	Amazing, or not......... 151 (and counting) posts over some idiot that didn't have enough self-control to keep his opinion of gays to himself. We are a bunch of sensitive sandy giners, aren't we? __________________
Posts: 39,410

02-15-2007, 02:24 PM	#158
FringeNC MVP Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: NC Casino cash: $1316014	Hardaway's comments make you wonder about the whole "gays in the military" thing. Moral posturing aside, if indeed there are a lot of guys in the military that share Hardaway's views on gays, would it be wise to allow homosexuals? The fact that gays cannot come out of the closet in pro sports seems to indicate to me that we are a long way from being able to allow them to be overtly gay in the military. By the way, my view is that the job of the military is to kill hostiles, not be an institution of social engineering.
Posts: 10,174