Recent Comments

Hahaha me too. Have to wait like 2 years for a new one. Love #3

What you all missing is that if they go the streaming route, they get 100% of the funds. They produce it and they sell their coverage when needed.

Major sports are doing this everywhere. They build the new stadiums and then all in house food and stores are run by the team, when they used to pay 3rd party vendors to do so.

Streaming is no different. They will produce, distribute, and sell it. That is how you beat the SEC and BIG. They have to pay ESPN. If we do it in house the ACC does not.

With my newest TIVO box I can record four shows at once or have four different channels set up live and flip between them. Rewinding if need be so I can see if I missed anything.

ESPN3 is delayed, as for streaming something to my TV like Amazon, Netflix, HBO I do that. However for live sporting event days like Saturday in the fall for TV I want to ability to channel surf not pull up one single streaming site that I'm stuck on unless I want to go to a complete different streaming app/service or go to live TV.

What's a tuner?

Eh, I won't argue that it's not worded quite right. That's what happens when you plagiarize. But the way I understood it, is that moral relativism's defining point is it's claim that moral standards are not absolute. That morals are different depending on culture. It's the basis on which they argue morality, and therefore it is used as a type of moral standard. In that way, the statement makes sense. But I can totally see your point there.

It seemed like the article states differing facts:

1. The BIG10 & SEC make tons of money because their network is printing money
2. No one wants a conference network because they lose money.

Which one is correct? I could see the BIG10 & SEC losing market share in the long run if they are not successful in having ALL marquee programs join their conference.

A streaming plan is definitely imperative for the success of an ACC Network deal.

P1. Moral relativists claim that there are no absolute moral standards.
P2. The claim "All moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard.

this makes no sense to me. "all moral standards are relative" might be an absolute statement but it is not proposing an absolute moral standard. This part of your argument lost me.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I just think your logic on that point is either flawed or mis-communicated.

The ACC is going to get a network. Rumors have ESPNU turning into an ACC network. Also have to think an ACC network would be just as valuable as the BIG or SEC networks if presented right. Those networks are made up entirely of tier 3 rights which the ACC kills it in (probably superior inventory to either). It's just a matter of when and how, not if IMO. Only reason these pieces get written is because they kill it on clicks, not because the writers truly believe it.

Edit: Apologies. The video without explanation was counterproductive, and came across as overly hostile in hindsight. Should've let it go till I actually had time for a full response. So,

We're not talking philosophy, we're talking morality. There is inherent right and wrong. Things that you don't need to be told or conditioned not to do. No one has to tell you not to kill people for sport. You already know not to do that. Because it is intuitively wrong. There may be some difference in how to define certain terms, which I did point out before, but things do break down to black and white morality if we delve deep enough. No one has to set morals. They just are. They are inherent and unwavering. Everything else is quibbling over semantics.

The question I stated is entirely regarding morality, and you missed the clear point. Law may define labor, and it may define compensation, but it cannot change that my labor belongs to me, and if you want it, you must compensate me. Essentially, your argument justifies slavery, as long as the law says it's okay. You end by stating that there is a distinct difference between legal and moral questions. But this is incorrect. Laws stem from interpretation and application of morals, so all legal questions raise moral questions. So the underlying sentiment of the statement I made is in fact a moral question, whereas defining the terms becomes a legal question.

Finally, social normality defining morals is ludicrous, and I'll give an example (which will beget groans, but is nonetheless accurate):

P1. Cultural relativists propose moral rightness is a matter of obedience to cultural values.
P2. Nazi henchmen complicit in genocide were obedient to the accepted cultural values of Nazi Germany.
P3. Nazi henchmen were publicly convicted based upon the cultural values of the international community by way of an international trial and codes of the Geneva Convention.
P4. Both Nazi Germany and the international community considered their values to be correct.
P5. The moral opinions of 2 cultural groups to which Germany belonged were contradictory.
C. Therefore, cultural values alone are not enough to determine moral rightness.

Here's another:
P1. Moral relativists claim that there are no absolute moral standards.
P2. The claim "All moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard.
P3. To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical.
C. Therefore, the relativist's claim "All moral standards are relative" is illogical.

So, in conclusion, you're wrong, your reasoning is highly flawed, and moral relativism is nonsense. Please enjoy the video.

Is it too much to ask to have the 'Virginia' be in Maroon on Tech plates. It looks odd otherwise.