Which Off Field Issues Bothered You More (1 Viewer)

[Bayhawks]

For your or I to assume we knows what happened is foolish.

Much of this line of argument worked convincingly well for OJ (i.e., no witnesses, story changed, evidence to acquit). I guess to assume we know what happened in that case is pretty foolish, too.

OJ has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on this discussion, why are you bringing him up?

 

[Bayhawks]

Since she was fairly drunk, (as Carolina Hustler suggested),

he raped a girl who was apparently so drunk she couldn't remember what position she was in, but she could remember that she said no and that Ben raped her.

Context. Quote the entire sentence, you'll see that the what the parenthesis was referring to came afterwards.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I never claimed he assualted 4 women. There is a thread on the forum detailing the other two.

Here is one:

http://deadspin.com/5518855/yet-another-ro...-his-pants-down

Ben has had 4 allegations of sexual misbehavior.

You said this, so you are correct, you didn't claim he assaulted 4 women. My apologies if the way I worded my statement wasn't accurate enough.The article you quoted is from deadspin, and is an attempt to stir up news during SB week. The "allegation" was first reported, then dis-credited, back in the spring.

Think about it-that article said a young woman claimed Ben took his penis out and told her to do whatever she wanted. This occured at his home. A week later, he invited her over again, and she went. That doesn't really suggest that she was sexually assaulted, does it? If she had been assaulted, why would she return, a week later?

Listening to rumors, the tabloids, and gossip sites for news is just stupid, IMO. They don't bother, AT ALL, to corroborate their sources/stories. They only print/post what will get hits and don't care if it's actually true or not.

I don't doubt any of this happened. You quote a post where he said "sexual misbehavior" which I agree this qualifies for..

This probably didn't bother this girl much, maybe she liked it, obviously wasn't to awful bad for her to come back a second time... The truth is, some girls expect this behavior from men, therefore making that situation more tolerable.. The fact that she might be a little off based on conditioning and things she has experienced in her life, doesn't excuse his behavior. Doesn't change the fact that it would be very inappropriate for some woman..

 

[cobalt_27]

For your or I to assume we knows what happened is foolish.

Much of this line of argument worked convincingly well for OJ (i.e., no witnesses, story changed, evidence to acquit). I guess to assume we know what happened in that case is pretty foolish, too.

I'm glad you agree.OJ has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on this discussion, why are you bringing him up?

Oh, so we're not talking about a crime that was or wasn't committed? We're not talking about people forming their own independent opinions of what happened absent first-hand witnesses? We're not talking about a guy not being criminally punished for a crime that most people feel he committed?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

For your or I to assume we knows what happened is foolish.

Much of this line of argument worked convincingly well for OJ (i.e., no witnesses, story changed, evidence to acquit). I guess to assume we know what happened in that case is pretty foolish, too.

I'm glad you agree.OJ has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on this discussion, why are you bringing him up?

No more than your cousin does? (no offense intended towards your cousin)

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Since she was fairly drunk, (as Carolina Hustler suggested),

he raped a girl who was apparently so drunk she couldn't remember what position she was in, but she could remember that she said no and that Ben raped her.

Context. Quote the entire sentence, you'll see that the what the parenthesis was referring to came afterwards.

I see that, but even better point, CrossEyed seems to be questioning her ability to remember anything clearly enough to remember that she said no and that it was rape... Because she was "so drunk she couldn't remember what position she was in"

 

[Bayhawks]

I never claimed he assualted 4 women. There is a thread on the forum detailing the other two.

Here is one:

http://deadspin.com/5518855/yet-another-ro...-his-pants-down

Ben has had 4 allegations of sexual misbehavior.

You said this, so you are correct, you didn't claim he assaulted 4 women. My apologies if the way I worded my statement wasn't accurate enough.The article you quoted is from deadspin, and is an attempt to stir up news during SB week. The "allegation" was first reported, then dis-credited, back in the spring.

Think about it-that article said a young woman claimed Ben took his penis out and told her to do whatever she wanted. This occured at his home. A week later, he invited her over again, and she went. That doesn't really suggest that she was sexually assaulted, does it? If she had been assaulted, why would she return, a week later?

Listening to rumors, the tabloids, and gossip sites for news is just stupid, IMO. They don't bother, AT ALL, to corroborate their sources/stories. They only print/post what will get hits and don't care if it's actually true or not.

I don't doubt any of this happened. You quote a post where he said "sexual misbehavior" which I agree this qualifies for..

This probably didn't bother this girl much, maybe she liked it, obviously wasn't to awful bad for her to come back a second time... The truth is, some girls expect this behavior from men, therefore making that situation more tolerable.. The fact that she might be a little off based on conditioning and things she has experienced in her life, doesn't excuse his behavior. Doesn't change the fact that it would be very inappropriate for some woman..

It's not sexual misbehavior if the woman is "ok with it."If I make a sexual comment to a female coworker that she does not appreciate, that's sexual harassment. If I make the same comment to my wife/girlfriend/friend who is female, etc who is "ok with that kind of talk," then it's not.

It's not "sexual misbehavior" if neither party is bothered by it. The fact that she went back demonstrates that it didn't bother her, therefore it's not sexual misbehavior.

 

[Bayhawks]

Since she was fairly drunk, (as Carolina Hustler suggested),

he raped a girl who was apparently so drunk she couldn't remember what position she was in, but she could remember that she said no and that Ben raped her.

Context. Quote the entire sentence, you'll see that the what the parenthesis was referring to came afterwards.

I see that, but even better point, CrossEyed seems to be questioning her ability to remember anything clearly enough to remember that she said no and that it was rape... Because she was "so drunk she couldn't remember what position she was in"

I understand what you're saying, but the way you edited the quote makes it appear that I was suggesting that you said she was drunk, which was not my intent.

 

[Bayhawks]

For your or I to assume we knows what happened is foolish.

Much of this line of argument worked convincingly well for OJ (i.e., no witnesses, story changed, evidence to acquit). I guess to assume we know what happened in that case is pretty foolish, too.

I'm glad you agree.OJ has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on this discussion, why are you bringing him up?

No more than your cousin does? (no offense intended towards your cousin)

The OJ case wasn't a "he said, she said" sexual allegation situation, while my cousin's trial/conviction/acquittal was.Can you seriously not see the difference between a murder trial where there was physical evidence that was studied and a situation where it's the word of 1 person vs another, with no other evidence?

 

[Bayhawks]

For your or I to assume we knows what happened is foolish.

Much of this line of argument worked convincingly well for OJ (i.e., no witnesses, story changed, evidence to acquit). I guess to assume we know what happened in that case is pretty foolish, too.

I'm glad you agree.OJ has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on this discussion, why are you bringing him up?

Oh, so we're not talking about a crime that was or wasn't committed? We're not talking about people forming their own independent opinions of what happened absent first-hand witnesses? We're not talking about a guy not being criminally punished for a crime that most people feel he committed?

No, we're talking about a sexual assault allegation.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I never claimed he assualted 4 women. There is a thread on the forum detailing the other two.

Here is one:

http://deadspin.com/5518855/yet-another-ro...-his-pants-down

Ben has had 4 allegations of sexual misbehavior.

You said this, so you are correct, you didn't claim he assaulted 4 women. My apologies if the way I worded my statement wasn't accurate enough.The article you quoted is from deadspin, and is an attempt to stir up news during SB week. The "allegation" was first reported, then dis-credited, back in the spring.

Think about it-that article said a young woman claimed Ben took his penis out and told her to do whatever she wanted. This occured at his home. A week later, he invited her over again, and she went. That doesn't really suggest that she was sexually assaulted, does it? If she had been assaulted, why would she return, a week later?

Listening to rumors, the tabloids, and gossip sites for news is just stupid, IMO. They don't bother, AT ALL, to corroborate their sources/stories. They only print/post what will get hits and don't care if it's actually true or not.

I don't doubt any of this happened. You quote a post where he said "sexual misbehavior" which I agree this qualifies for..

This probably didn't bother this girl much, maybe she liked it, obviously wasn't to awful bad for her to come back a second time... The truth is, some girls expect this behavior from men, therefore making that situation more tolerable.. The fact that she might be a little off based on conditioning and things she has experienced in her life, doesn't excuse his behavior. Doesn't change the fact that it would be very inappropriate for some woman..

It's not sexual misbehavior if the woman is "ok with it."If I make a sexual comment to a female coworker that she does not appreciate, that's sexual harassment. If I make the same comment to my wife/girlfriend/friend who is female, etc who is "ok with that kind of talk," then it's not.

It's not "sexual misbehavior" if neither party is bothered by it. The fact that she went back demonstrates that it didn't bother her, therefore it's not sexual misbehavior.

So his behavior is classified differently depending on whether or not the girl is offended by it... The story suggests she was somewhat offended.. The story suggests she had to wrestle away his hand..

My point is, he assumes he can do whatever he wants and some girls would let him get away with this behavior and some wouldn't.. That doesn't change the fact that it's inappropriate behavior..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

For your or I to assume we knows what happened is foolish.

Much of this line of argument worked convincingly well for OJ (i.e., no witnesses, story changed, evidence to acquit). I guess to assume we know what happened in that case is pretty foolish, too.

I'm glad you agree.OJ has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on this discussion, why are you bringing him up?

No more than your cousin does? (no offense intended towards your cousin)

The OJ case wasn't a "he said, she said" sexual allegation situation, while my cousin's trial/conviction/acquittal was.Can you seriously not see the difference between a murder trial where there was physical evidence that was studied and a situation where it's the word of 1 person vs another, with no other evidence?

You yourself said Ben should be assumed innocent because he wasn't charged or convicted, leaving the Justice system as the only qualifier.. Then you said your cousin was charged and convicted of something he didn't do... OJ was charged and not convicted.. You see where I might find the justice system lacking as a qualifier here?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You see where I might find the justice system lacking as a qualifier here?

This is still America right?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You see where I might find the justice system lacking as a qualifier here?

This is still America right?

If by that you mean OJ is innocent and Bayhawks cousin was guilty, and then not guilty... in order to prove Ben innocent.. then I don't know what you mean here... lol

 

[cobalt_27]

For your or I to assume we knows what happened is foolish.

Much of this line of argument worked convincingly well for OJ (i.e., no witnesses, story changed, evidence to acquit). I guess to assume we know what happened in that case is pretty foolish, too.

I'm glad you agree.OJ has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on this discussion, why are you bringing him up?

Oh, so we're not talking about a crime that was or wasn't committed? We're not talking about people forming their own independent opinions of what happened absent first-hand witnesses? We're not talking about a guy not being criminally punished for a crime that most people feel he committed?

No, we're talking about a sexual assault allegation.

Way to be concrete there, guy. You have a frontal lobe. I trust you can perform basic level abstractions in your head, if you tried.

 

[DoubleG]

Current Forbes Magazine poll being conducted..........."The 10 Most Disliked People in Sports". Vick currently at #2, and Big Ben not even in top 10.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/27/al-davis-...iked_slide.html

Al Davis and Jerry Jones are #1 and #3. The point is the article has nothing to do with illegal activies or alleged illegal activities. HTH.

 

[todisco1]

Tough because we KNOW what Vick did, we DON'T KNOW what Ben did or didn't do, though his pattern of behavior indicates at best he was making immature, horrible decisions. On the surface I'd say Vick because of what we don't know... however, I would let Vick babysit my dog before I would let Ben date my daughter.

So I guess it's Ben for me.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

There was plenty of opportunity to comment on the evidence against Roethlisberger at the time the allegations arose. I took full advantage of the opportunity at the time. If anyone cared to they could probably reference those threads. I don't know why anyone would bother. A rehash of the matter now will not, I believe, change any minds or accomplish much of anything.

When Vick's matter arose the same was true.

Today things are what they are and I can leave it there. For the sake of the individuals involved I hope neither behavior will be repeated and that going forward each behaves as a model citizen.

As a fan I am pleased that neither represents the franchise for which I root. I temper that feeling knowing that there has been some disgraceful conduct committed by persons associated with the franchise I embrace and likely will be again in the future.

Go Pack!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I would let Vick babysit my dog before I would let Ben date my daughter.

But I'd hate to be in the position where those were my only 2 choices.. lol

 

[imagroid]

THERE ARE NO WITNESSES to what happened in the bathroom.Some of the girls friends' say the witnessed her go into a bathroom with Roethlisberger, and that his "bodyguards" wouldn't let them go in there. They didn't see what happened. What they witnessed was, they claim, her going into the bathroom with him.His "bodyguards" say they didn't prevent anyone from entering the bathroom.You are choosing one set of "witnesses," but choosing to dis-believe the others. To use your own words, "the witnesses? They don't count?" And, as I've already pointed out, I think Roethlisberger is(was?) a jerk and probably felt he deserved all the attention he was getting and the girl was lucky to be near him. Perhaps they had sex, but he was a richard to her afterwards, perhaps they didn't have sex, but he was a richard to her while trying to get some, and perhaps he did force himself on her. Any one of those 3 things is equally probable, in my mind, and any one of those 3 things could have caused her to seem to be very upset afterwards. When her girlfriends saw her so upset, they made her talk to police. Since she was fairly drunk, (as Carolina Hustler suggested), perhaps she wasn't entirely sure of what happened.But the only 2 people who know what happened in there are Roethlsiberger and the girl. She changed her story twice, and then decided not to talk about it anymore. He (probably on the advice of his lawyer) decided not to talk about it. For your or I to assume we knows what happened is foolish.

Oh I see. So I guess every case is a he said she said unless you have a confession. No feelings about the condition she was in? Unconscious with bruises?? So what he just roughed her up a little? Like I said before. If you think all these women are ca-hooting against him, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I think what cobalt_27 is saying is close to what I was hinting earlier (and maybe not clearly enough): that in sexual assault cases it is a typical (cultural, moreso than legal even) response to say "we don't know what happened" than in other criminal cases.

 

[cobalt_27]

Tough because we KNOW what Vick did, we DON'T KNOW what Ben did or didn't do, though his pattern of behavior indicates at best he was making immature, horrible decisions. On the surface I'd say Vick because of what we don't know... however, I would let Vick babysit my dog before I would let Ben date my daughter.

So I guess it's Ben for me.

When faced with even a choice (would you rather one or the other), I'm pretty sure even Steelers fans are sensible enough to prefer Vick babysitting their dog over Ben dating their daughter. No responsible parent would want their child near that guy.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

THERE ARE NO WITNESSES to what happened in the bathroom.Some of the girls friends' say the witnessed her go into a bathroom with Roethlisberger, and that his "bodyguards" wouldn't let them go in there. They didn't see what happened. What they witnessed was, they claim, her going into the bathroom with him.His "bodyguards" say they didn't prevent anyone from entering the bathroom.You are choosing one set of "witnesses," but choosing to dis-believe the others. To use your own words, "the witnesses? They don't count?" And, as I've already pointed out, I think Roethlisberger is(was?) a jerk and probably felt he deserved all the attention he was getting and the girl was lucky to be near him. Perhaps they had sex, but he was a richard to her afterwards, perhaps they didn't have sex, but he was a richard to her while trying to get some, and perhaps he did force himself on her. Any one of those 3 things is equally probable, in my mind, and any one of those 3 things could have caused her to seem to be very upset afterwards. When her girlfriends saw her so upset, they made her talk to police. Since she was fairly drunk, (as Carolina Hustler suggested), perhaps she wasn't entirely sure of what happened.But the only 2 people who know what happened in there are Roethlsiberger and the girl. She changed her story twice, and then decided not to talk about it anymore. He (probably on the advice of his lawyer) decided not to talk about it. For your or I to assume we knows what happened is foolish.

Oh I see. So I guess every case is a he said she said unless you have a confession. No feelings about the condition she was in? Unconscious with bruises?? So what he just roughed her up a little? Like I said before. If you think all these women are ca-hooting against him, I have a bridge to sell you.

Unless you can prove she wasn't attacked by a sexually perverted Ninja who droped from the ceiling after Ben left the bathroom, you have no case here

 

[Bayhawks]

No more than your cousin does? (no offense intended towards your cousin)

The OJ case wasn't a "he said, she said" sexual allegation situation, while my cousin's trial/conviction/acquittal was.Can you seriously not see the difference between a murder trial where there was physical evidence that was studied and a situation where it's the word of 1 person vs another, with no other evidence?

You yourself said Ben should be assumed innocent because he wasn't charged or convicted, leaving the Justice system as the only qualifier.. Then you said your cousin was charged and convicted of something he didn't do... OJ was charged and not convicted.. You see where I might find the justice system lacking as a qualifier here?

I did? Because I don't think I did. Could you possible show me where I said this? Thanks.The point of my cousin's situation is that he was convicted largely on the basis of "she said." When it turns out that what "she said" was wrong, there was no evidence against him. My point had NOTHING to do with the justice system. That was fairly clear in my previous posts. You have decided to integrate the justice system into the conversation, not I. The justice system is irrelevant to this discussion, IMO.

We know what Vick did. We don't KNOW what Roethlsiberger did. If Roethlisberger did what you believe he did, that is worse than what Vick did. If Roethlisberger did what I think he did, than (while I don't condone what I believe Roethlisberger did), what Vick did was worse.

 

[Bayhawks]

THERE ARE NO WITNESSES to what happened in the bathroom.

Some of the girls friends' say the witnessed her go into a bathroom with Roethlisberger, and that his "bodyguards" wouldn't let them go in there. They didn't see what happened. What they witnessed was, they claim, her going into the bathroom with him.

His "bodyguards" say they didn't prevent anyone from entering the bathroom.

You are choosing one set of "witnesses," but choosing to dis-believe the others. To use your own words, "the witnesses? They don't count?"

And, as I've already pointed out, I think Roethlisberger is(was?) a jerk and probably felt he deserved all the attention he was getting and the girl was lucky to be near him. Perhaps they had sex, but he was a richard to her afterwards, perhaps they didn't have sex, but he was a richard to her while trying to get some, and perhaps he did force himself on her. Any one of those 3 things is equally probable, in my mind, and any one of those 3 things could have caused her to seem to be very upset afterwards. When her girlfriends saw her so upset, they made her talk to police. Since she was fairly drunk, (as Carolina Hustler suggested), perhaps she wasn't entirely sure of what happened.

But the only 2 people who know what happened in there are Roethlsiberger and the girl. She changed her story twice, and then decided not to talk about it anymore. He (probably on the advice of his lawyer) decided not to talk about it.

For your or I to assume we knows what happened is foolish.

Oh I see. So I guess every case is a he said she said unless you have a confession. No feelings about the condition she was in? Unconscious with bruises?? So what he just roughed her up a little? Like I said before. If you think all these women are ca-hooting against him, I have a bridge to sell you.

For the record, a confession would still be part of "he said, she said," guy. But yes, a large majority of sexual assault cases are, exactly that, "he said, she said."As for the unconscious part, why are you making things up? She wasn't unconscious.

 

[Bayhawks]

There was plenty of opportunity to comment on the evidence against Roethlisberger at the time the allegations arose. I took full advantage of the opportunity at the time. If anyone cared to they could probably reference those threads. I don't know why anyone would bother. A rehash of the matter now will not, I believe, change any minds or accomplish much of anything.

When Vick's matter arose the same was true.

Today things are what they are and I can leave it there. For the sake of the individuals involved I hope neither behavior will be repeated and that going forward each behaves as a model citizen.

As a fan I am pleased that neither represents the franchise for which I root. I temper that feeling knowing that there has been some disgraceful conduct committed by persons associated with the franchise I embrace and likely will be again in the future.

Go Pack!

You know what? You're exactly right.

 

[cobalt_27]

If Roethlisberger did what you believe he did, that is worse than what Vick did. If Roethlisberger did what I think he did, than (while I don't condone what I believe Roethlisberger did), what Vick did was worse.

[/thread]The rest is rehashing the same did he/didn't he argument.And, that's the point of criticism of Yudkin's choice of poll question here. The question isn't whether killing dogs is worse than rape. I think nearly everyone would agree the latter is worse. But, what he's eliciting here is more of the same argument from before: Do you or don't you think Ben raped that girl?

 

[mcintyre1]

All the discussion of Ben vs Vick and who is most reprehensible misses the mark. Vick isn't playing in the Super Bowl. The only fair comparison is Ben vs Aaron. Let's examine that for a minute.

Ben is a low class cad who has taken advantage of his fame and indulged in heinous acts toward powerless women in dirty public places. With all the damage control he has done, there has never been a "Come to Jesus" moment. I'm not sure if it's because he's being "handled" or if it's his own volition, but he never seemed sorry about his crime, just that he got caught. His own teammates don't like or support him, and forget about Peter King's recent retraction. The timing of that retraction is peculiar and smells fishy. Does it smell fishy to you? I have no sympathy for Ben Roethlisberger. He brought this all on himself. If he looks lost, confused, or desperate for the rape questions to end, I'll enjoy watching him squirm in his seat. He deserves to be blasted by the press and more.

Now take a look at Aaron Rodgers. He patiently bided his time for 3 years behind a living legend. He was booed in his own stadium his first year he started. The public outcry of how do you replace Favre for an unproven QB was incredible. The Packers proved they made the right choice all along as Rodgers developed into an elite QB that he is today. You can't give enough credit to Rodgers. That was tremendous pressure he faced replacing Favre, not unlike Steve Young when he replaced Joe Montana.

So when you look at the 2 QB's in this game, if you aren't partial to either team going in, how can you root for Roethlisberger over Rodgers? I definitely will be rooting for Green Bay, despite the fact that those fickle Packer fans will enjoy the win.

Hijack/

This paragraph is so laden with Steeler and Ben hate I find it hard to believe you're not trolling. His own team mates don't like or support him, huh?:

"That's baloney," inside linebacker James Farrior said yesterday after the Steelers arrived in North Texas for Super Bowl XLV. "All of the guys in the locker room love Ben. No matter what people say, how people think we feel about Ben, we love the guy."

...

"I'm just thankful that my teammates are who they are, and I'm really appreciative of it," Roethlisberger said.

Roethlisberger's teammates rushed to his defense during the first media availability here.

Wide receiver Hines Ward said he didn't recall talking to Goodell about Roethlisberger.

Farrior said when Goodell met with the Steelers during training camp, he pressed the commissioner about Roethlisberger's suspension.

"I really didn't want to talk about anything else but the suspension," said Farrior, whom coach Mike Tomlin recently called the unquestioned leader of the Steelers. "He tried to get off the subject and really didn't give us any answers that we were looking for."

...

"I don't know what he means by 'come to his defense,' " Tomlin said. "Ben is a highly respected member of our football team not only because of what he's done this year but just his body of work and the person that he is.

"We all fall short of perfection, we all make mistakes. He's doing the best that he can in terms of moving forward with it, as are his teammates."

Steelers defensive end Brett Keisel, perhaps Roethlisberger's closest friend on the team, said, "I've always had Ben's back. I think everyone was behind him. Everyone just didn't really know how to respond to all the questions and all the scrutiny."

Read more: Teammates rebuff Goodell's claims no one defended Ben - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...l#ixzz1Civ7l5JN