• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

‘The Blind Side’ was a lie

Neurodeac said:
Based on the title, I figured it was a sports thread, maybe about college football. I figured the WFU connection would be revealed inside.
Click to expand...
yeah we never have NWTs on the sports board

but if you must be hand-held, as mentioned we beat Oher twice in college and we've beaten Freeze too.
 
If you start a point with insinuating that THE MEDIA are brainwashing the people that you’re presumably rebutting then you’re probably not going to get great engagement.
 
scooter84 said:
Greed can be good if it motivates one to build a company and provide goods and jobs and amass wealth which then in turn leads to philanthropy and more giving than all of the rest of us put together.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t really sound like greed
 
scooter84 said:
Lots of sarcasm and bitterness about greedy rich people here, so I inferred the adjective "evil". People say just because they were already rich doesn't mean they couldn't want to screw Michael and get more rich. You could also turn that around and say just because they were rich doesn't mean they couldn't have just seen a kid in need and wanted to help him.

I'm not defending these folks specifically - I don't know enough about their motivations to do so. I just think there seems to be a general public sentiment right now in the popular media that capitalism and greed are inherently bad and I think that is dumb. Greed is bad if it leads to unscrupulous behavior that hurts people in order to gain wealth. Greed can be good if it motivates one to build a company and provide goods and jobs and amass wealth which then in turn leads to philanthropy and more giving than all of the rest of us put together. Both types exist, of course, but I believe (hope?) that there is less of the former and more of the latter than the media would have you believe.
Click to expand...
I work in philanthropy now, and I've spent my entire career in the not for profit sector. I can promise you that anyone serious about solving the problems not for profits are addressing, would prefer systemic change to prevent the circumstances most of us try to alleviate. Justice > charity all the time.
 
scooter84 said:
If income inequality is bad, what is the goal, income equality? What does that look like and how does it happen?
Click to expand...
There’s a LOT of room between income equality and the level of income inequality we currently have.

There’s no reason to take this to the extreme, nobody is suggesting that everyone’s paycheck should be the exact same. Just that we should remove the systems currently in place that facilitate the wealth accumulation of the ultra-rich at the expense of the poor.
 
scooter84 said:
If income inequality is bad, what is the goal, income equality? What does that look like and how does it happen?
Click to expand...

Aren’t you in your 60s or older? You remember a time income inequality wasn’t as bad as it is now. Use your childhood as a starting point. Make sure people of all backgrounds have the same opportunities white men had.
 
scooter84 said:
There is a big difference between "driven, egotistical, mean, and cut-throat" and "evil". Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were/are both all of the former but I don't have any reason to believe they are/were the latter
Click to expand...
Man, you need to do a deep dive on Bill Gates and the covid vaccine. You've missed some things.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I clicked on the Chicago Cubs Thread this morning and read all 220 pages. I am still waiting for the Wake Forest connection @cookoutdeac mods?
Click to expand...
I clicked on the Conference expansion thread and someone had the gall to actually be talking about conference expansion, and not about the most recent US News and World Report Law School rankings.

This is why I spend my time on 247, Les would never allow such.
 
PhDeac said:
Aren’t you in your 60s or older? You remember a time income inequality wasn’t as bad as it is now. Use your childhood as a starting point. Make sure people of all backgrounds have the same opportunities white men had.
Click to expand...
You are correct and I agree that income inequality has gotten MUCH worse - especially at the highest levels. There is no reason that CEOs should be making a zillion times more than staff workers - or whatever the number is. (Just like coaches and athletes shouldn't be making the obscene amounts of money they are making) Should they be making many times more? Yes, they should. I'm not sure how to fix that. Executive salaries are driven by market factors and competition for talent.
Corporations shouldn't be governed quarter by quarter and judged by shareholder return - they should be governed with the long term in mind and judged by the jobs they create, the products and services they deliver, how they treat their employees, and what they do for their community. But CEOs and Boards know that in order to keep their jobs they have to focus on the former and give lip service to the latter.

As to your second point I believe that equality of opportunity is better now than it ever has been - certainly far better than it was when I was young. Can it get better? Certainly. Maybe I am just ignorant but I don't see these huge systems in place to keep people down.
 
scooter84 said:
As to your second point I believe that equality of opportunity is better now than it ever has been - certainly far better than it was when I was young.
Click to expand...
Could you explain a bit more about what you mean by this?

For example, from my vantage point - millennials graduated with a ton of student loan debt, fragmented organizational structures that don't guarantee job tenure, and have now lived through two massive crises that have tanked the economy. In response to those crises, markets for goods like education and housing, to name two, have actually become less inclusive. So, the opportunity to own a house, for example, seems to be very out of reach for a large slice of the population. I suppose that that lack of opportunity is more equally distributed than it was in the past (e.g., unequal access to mortgage capital, racial residential segregation, etc.) - is that what you're arguing?
 
Strickland33 said:
Could you explain a bit more about what you mean by this?

For example, from my vantage point - millennials graduated with a ton of student loan debt, fragmented organizational structures that don't guarantee job tenure, and have now lived through two massive crises that have tanked the economy. In response to those crises, markets for goods like education and housing, to name two, have actually become less inclusive. So, the opportunity to own a house, for example, seems to be very out of reach for a large slice of the population. I suppose that that lack of opportunity is more equally distributed than it was in the past (e.g., unequal access to mortgage capital, racial residential segregation, etc.) - is that what you're arguing?
Click to expand...
What I read in your post is that things are tough - and I wouldn't disagree. But I think women and people have color have made huge strides with respect to opportunity to advance and improve the lives of their families. In my experience I see no disparities in opportunities but I realize I am sheltered and I am sure disparities do exist. Hopefully they are becoming fewer and farther between.
 
scooter84 said:
What I read in your post is that things are tough - and I wouldn't disagree. But I think women and people have color have made huge strides with respect to opportunity to advance and improve the lives of their families. In my experience I see no disparities in opportunities but I realize I am sheltered and I am sure disparities do exist. Hopefully they are becoming fewer and farther between.
Click to expand...

perhaps we should let them weigh in.
 
73deac said:
Maybe not the most reliable source, but was watching the Today Show this morning and the legal "expert" said by the time the Tuohy's adoption would have been processed he would have been 18 and the conservatorship was the other option to use. Lawyer stated that the Tuohy's never received any of his football or endorsement earnings and that the Tuohy's were very wealthy prior to the relationship. They mentioned the Tuohy's earned much more from their restaurant franchises than anything they gained from the movie? Opinions were that it would be hard for Oher to claim they used it for significant financial gain because of those reasons. Also said they have proof that he had told them he would ruin their character if they didn't pay him 30 million and that would be harmful to his case in court.
Click to expand...

They used Oher to try to gain celebrity not money. It worked out for them.
 
scooter84 said:
What I read in your post is that things are tough - and I wouldn't disagree. But I think women and people have color have made huge strides with respect to opportunity to advance and improve the lives of their families. In my experience I see no disparities in opportunities but I realize I am sheltered and I am sure disparities do exist. Hopefully they are becoming fewer and farther between.
Click to expand...
(White male take): Yes I think opportunities to advance have improved. That said on a scale of 1 to 10 we’ve moved from like a 2 to a 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top