Former NFL player Michael Oher claimed that he was never legally adopted (1 Viewer)

[Dago]

I'm certain that's not what I'm saying. Obviously, if the facts support the claims of the family, then they do; but, assuming someone isn't stealing because they're rich is an opinion that is unsupported by evidence. Too often, we believe there to be a correlation between monetary success and moral virtue.

A question, when the FBI relies on a profile of serial killers when investigating, does that mean they are rejecting the idea that someone other than one who fits the profile is the killer?

Ok....thank you for clarifying and giving me the context. I made the statement so I won't delete it but will edit it to reflect my error so it doesn't get used to continue.
I thought you were one of the posters who had assumed their guilt and you have no post in here doing that. My bad and my apologies.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

Too often, we believe there to be a correlation between monetary success and moral virtue.

Oh, my God, who in the world believes THAT???

Now, I believe that you want to believe that many believe that....

 

[Dago]

Oh, my God, who in the world believes THAT???

Now, I believe that you want to believe that many believe that....

When someone says that they wouldn't have done this since they are already rich, they are kind of doing that....I can see the point.

Pretty much all @Boy_of_wonder75 was doing was refuting that. Logically....yes why would you do something that wrong when it's pennies in comparison to your net worth but decisions aren't always (generally) made based on logic

 

[HoustonSaint68]

This is where I am. I think sometimes for my own sanity, I need to not always go to the most execrable of explanations. And it likely is a coping mechanism that leaves me open to naïveté, but I just don’t have it in me to go full cynic all the time.

Yup. Life is so much better going this route.

It's not the same as sticking one's head in the sand, as the outrage police likely would allege. It's patiently awaiting the facts, and choosing to believe the better side of someone while you wait.

It's the old Philosophy 101 case of the "selfishness" of the soldier jumping on a grenade to save others in the foxhole. Just because one does it for selfish reasons doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

[Edit: Oh, and cpg, just one more thing...love the avatar!]

 

[HoustonSaint68]

When someone says that they wouldn't have done this since they are already rich, they are kind of doing that....I can see the point.

Pretty much all @Boy_of_wonder75 was doing was refuting that. Logically....yes why would you do something that wrong when it's pennies in comparison to your net worth but decisions aren't always (generally) made based on logic

No, I'm referencing (albeit, in joking fashion) not the general point but rather the specific statement:

"Too often, we believe there to be a correlation between monetary success and moral virtue."

I don't know anyone (at least anyone who is a regular poster here) who believes that statement as written.

No, I suspect that, much like yours, that statement wasn't reflective of the intended point...hence the joking intent of my reply.

 

[DaveXA]

... Too often, we believe there to be a correlation between monetary success and moral virtue.

I'm pretty sure most people here would agree that there is an inverse correlation between monetary success and moral virtue. In fact, I'd argue that the more wealth people have, the less moral they tend to be. Certainly it's not always true for everyone, but as a general trend, I have no doubt it's true.

Regardless, everyone, regardless of background deserves the benefit of the doubt if we don't know anything else about them.

 

[Dago]

No, I'm referencing (albeit, in joking fashion) not the general point but rather the specific statement:

"Too often, we believe there to be a correlation between monetary success and moral virtue."

I don't know anyone (at least anyone who is a regular poster here) who believes that statement as written.

No, I suspect that, much like yours, that statement wasn't reflective of the intended point...hence the joking intent of my reply.

Well if one is saying that they made the right decision because they were already rich, then they are assigning a moral decision based on the wealth of the Tuohys.

He wasn't making a specific statement on the Tuohys and has never expressed that they are guilty in this thread. Some did and I lumped him in with them which was my mistake

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

I'm pretty sure most people here would agree that there is an inverse correlation between monetary success and moral virtue. In fact, I'd argue that the more wealth people have, the less moral they tend to be. Certainly it's not always true for everyone, but as a general trend, I have no doubt it's true.

Regardless, everyone, regardless of background deserves the benefit of the doubt if we don't know anything else about them.

So because I make 3X what I did when I started my career I’m now 3X less moral?

 

[DaveXA]

So because I make 3X what I did when I started my career I’m now 3X less moral?

That's not what I said tho. As a general trend, I think the richer people are, the less moral people tend to be. But of course individual cases will vary. Some might even become more moral. But there are exceptions everywhere.

 

[Dago]

That's not what I said tho. As a general trend, I think the richer people are, the less moral people tend to be. But of course individual cases will vary. Some might even become more moral. But there are exceptions everywhere.

Also may depend on what actions are being used to define 'morality'

 

[jasonsw]

I saw some story where some are demanding that Sandra Bullock.retuen the award she won in the movie.

I don't agree with that, she worked hard to win that award. She probably had no clue or any way of knowing what happened to Oher.

At worst she probably thought she was doing a fluffed up movie that was based on little truth.

 

[tenordas]

Oh, my God, who in the world believes THAT???

Now, I believe that you want to believe that many believe that....

Apparently, DaveXA does.

 

[DaveXA]

Apparently, DaveXA does.

The opposite, lol.

 

[Madmarsha]

Completely keeping my emotions separate and only focusing on the legal aspect of this, my big glaring question in this is why there is no mention of the conservatorship in connection with all the contracts that Michael has signed since he was drafted.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

Completely keeping my emotions separate and only focusing on the legal aspect of this, my big glaring question in this is why there is no mention of the conservatorship in connection with all the contracts that Michael has signed since he was drafted.

I suspect it’s because once he was enrolled in Ole Miss the document stayed in the drawer for the next 20 years, having served its purpose of getting Oher around NCAA’s booster rules.

I doubt anyone in the NFL world ever saw it and neither the Tuohys nor Oher had any reason to mention it.

That’s all pure speculation on my part. It’s possible the Tuohys have been involved in each of his adult contracts of every kind but I kinda doubt it.

Why it’s coming back around now is the question.