Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Bell Tolls for Thee" data-source="post: 132467184" data-attributes="member: 1812660">If legal standards is your definition of morality, then I feel for you and anyone who calls you friend.&nbsp; Pressuring a woman into an abortion to avoid child support and bad press ala Pitino or being a serial philanderer do not have ANY criminal repercussions, but I would hope you'd at least consider those as vile and unworthy of a person with integrity.&nbsp; Also your idea that social and professional repercussions be equivocal across all cases is another fallacy.&nbsp; This is true of legal/criminal law which is the basis for a limited governmental approach, but as John Adams said (paraphrasing): 'The government we have established is for a moral and religious people.&nbsp; It is wholly unfit for anyone else.'&nbsp; This means that the legal standard for repercussions SHOULD BE FAR BELOW the standard for social/societal repercussions as the freedom allowed is only fit for those who have a baseline, innate moral code to which they aspire.&nbsp; Thus if legal, aka punitive, repercussions are the primary motivator of the populace than the freedom granted by the legal system is too liberal for a thriving society.&nbsp; If you do not think that being the face of a program that relies on recruiting players from their mothers and good press from the media should entail a higher standard of conduct that just what is legal or illegal, you are ignorant of the requirements of the job.&nbsp; Also if you think alcoholism that makes someone capable of doing what Huggins did does not affect his or her job performance, you are also woefully ignorant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Bell Tolls for Thee, post: 132467184, member: 1812660"] If legal standards is your definition of morality, then I feel for you and anyone who calls you friend. Pressuring a woman into an abortion to avoid child support and bad press ala Pitino or being a serial philanderer do not have ANY criminal repercussions, but I would hope you'd at least consider those as vile and unworthy of a person with integrity. Also your idea that social and professional repercussions be equivocal across all cases is another fallacy. This is true of legal/criminal law which is the basis for a limited governmental approach, but as John Adams said (paraphrasing): '[B]The government we have established is for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unfit for anyone else[/B].' This means that the legal standard for repercussions SHOULD BE FAR BELOW the standard for social/societal repercussions as the freedom allowed is only fit for those who have a baseline, innate moral code to which they aspire. Thus if legal, aka punitive, repercussions are the primary motivator of the populace than the freedom granted by the legal system is too liberal for a thriving society. If you do not think that being the face of a program that relies on recruiting players from their mothers and good press from the media should entail a higher standard of conduct that just what is legal or illegal, you are ignorant of the requirements of the job. Also if you think alcoholism that makes someone capable of doing what Huggins did does not affect his or her job performance, you are also woefully ignorant. [/QUOTE]

Name