Brent Musburger Does NOT Deserve the Julia Gillard Reproach!

You see that gorgeous man there? He is the POTUS, I'll admit that, but he has also been on People Magazine’s 100 most beautiful people list, and that's who Prime Minister Gillard is trying to grope! Wow, I'm telling ya, you prime ministers, you get all the good-looking men. What a beautiful man! Whoa! So if you're a young girl in Australia, start climbing up on your dining room chairs and practice those political speeches with pops! Appropriate? Of course not. And frankly, Pro has a nerve to mention the beauty of appropriateness in a debate where he is defending Musburger's public ogling of a woman young enough to be his granddaughter. And now back to the debate... deserve (verb): do something worthy of (a reaction which rewards or punishes as appropriate) [1] Pro does not think Musburger's comments were sexist or inappropriate. He claims that this is fact, but the only fact we have is that some people found his comments offensive and some people didn't. On Pro's side are himself, Webb, and his friend Oryus who is another user on this site. On the offended side are a nameless mass of people. In Pro's own words: 'People attacked Musburger as "creepy," for ogling her too much, for being a "dirty old man," for being sexist, inappropriate, and more. One publication even went so far as to claim that Musburger's comments are "evidence" of "a culture of domestic violence and sexual assault in football."' Clearly, there are countless people who disagree with Pro. offensive (adjective): causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed [2] Yes, as Pro conceded in round 1, plenty of people feel resentful, upset or annoyed by Musburger's comments. Therefore, his comments are offensive. Moreover, his comments are offensive whether or not Pro, I or other debate.org users are offended. This is not because our opinions are worth less than other people's, but just because enough people are already offended to define his comments as offensive. Our opinions won't change that definition one way or the other. The Gillard Reproach Pro provided an excellent rundown of the speech. However, he didn't mention that it was a loser's speech. Gillard is presiding over a hung parliament. The independents who make up government with her had too much to gain from Slipper's dismissal. Also, Slipper's flirtatious and unwelcome texts to his aide, James Ashby, disparaging female genitalia, had been published widely. Gillard knew she had lost and her speech, replying to Abbott's motion to dismiss Slipper, barely even mentions the speaker. In fact, he resigned a day or so later. The reaction of Australian political commentators to the speech was universally scornful (e.g. [3]). It was only overseas, when the speech was taken out of context, that people found it impressive. Therefore, the Gillard reproach has the following qualities: 1. It does not extract any concessions 2. There is no question of apology or retraction 3. It is a speech of self-expression with no negative consequences for the listener. Thus, when the resolution states that Musburger deserves the Gillard reproach, it does NOT mean that he was in the wrong. It does NOT mean that he should apologize or retract his comments. It does NOT even require him to promise not to do it again. It requires nothing from Musburger except to sit for fifteen minutes. And a single representative of all those countless people offended by his comments has opportunity to express his or her resentment, upset and annoyance. That's all. Has Musburger done something worthy of sitting quietly for fifteen minutes? Yes. And afterwards he is free to walk away, unrepentant, to continue his own controversial style of sportscasting. Pro is trying to turn Musburger into a hero. He uses words like "honest" and "heartfelt" to describe him. It's nice that Pro is feeling a certain amount of sympathy with this public figure. But if Musburger really were honest and heartfelt, he would volunteer for the Gillard reproach. He would say something like, "really? My words were offensive? Please, please take 15 minutes of your time to explain to me how they were. You see, the last thing I want to do is say things that demean women. Thank you." Pro doesn't see anything offensive in Musburger's comments, therefore all those offended people must be wrong. Or. Maybe Pro is wrong. Or. Maybe it's not that simple. Maybe people just see things in different ways. Sometimes this happens when people object to sexism in language: certain men get angry. They say the objections are ridiculous overreactions, nit-picking and stupid. I honestly don't understand where this anger is coming from. People were offended. Listen to what they have to say. Simple. [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://www.theaustralian.com.au...