Originally posted by Bluesbro:
BrianGO must be on vacation or something. He is usually all over this topic. My favorite of his is "There must be mad cow disease in the water". That still makes me laugh Does anyone think he will not be suspended at all?
What more is there to say?
Some people think breaking the law is "bad", and if you do it, you should be "punished". This is related to the concept of "paying one's debts", and if you don't pay your debts, you are bad.
"Debt" is an idea that has been around for a long time, but not since human civilization first began. People in communities used to give things to others freely, if they were asked for. In return, that person would do or give something back at some later date. This was an unspoken, unwritten rule.
"Boy that is a beautiful cow. I wish I had one like that." "Take it, it's your's."
Later on, the person would return the favor, by doing something roughly equal in return.
People have this idea that there was some kind of "trading" system before physical money, but that is not true. It was more like a "morality" system.
In ancient Sanskrit and Aramaic the words for "debt" and "sin", were the same word. Paying back your debt, was a part of civilization.
"I'll give you 40 chickens for your cow", never existed. It is a myth.
In modern days, we declare on paper, how "bad" something is, or what something is worth. This is fine for the law, but not for morality.
For example, Socrates would say, "If a man gives me a sword, and I don't give it back, am I in debt to him? Yes? What if the man went insane and openly told me he intended to kill innocent people at the market with the sword?"
If you have a poor African country who owes "debt" to international banking cartels, are they "wrong" for not paying it back? Yes? What if that country was controlled by an evil dictator 20 years ago, who borrowed the money to buy weapons for his wars, and is now long dead and gone. Are the people living in that country 20 years later supposed to be responsible for this mad mans's transgressions?
Some people feel that Aldon Smith owes a "debt". I think it is absurd. Has he hit his girlfriend? No. Has he hurt anyone? No. Has he cheated the league? No. Has he stolen anything? No.
Do I think the NFL should step in when a person has not hurt anybody, yet has broken the law? NO. Absolutely not. The NFL should suspend players based upon MORAL transgressions. Not based upon breaking the law. The law is the law. It is there for its own purpose. The NFL wants to appear MORAL, not political.
Gun laws are political. DUI laws are moral, but IMO, Aldon didn't appear anywhere near as reckless as other players who have NOT been suspended by the NFL, so that does not add up either.
There is simply no logical basis from which to suspend Aldon Smith. The only basis, is the typical, "Oh my God what a bad man" reactionary soccer mom polemic.