You've moved the goal posts. Something you seem to be doing quite a bit when you can't argue a point.
I've just gone and explained why a Rita Panahi article should be considered invalid as supporting evidence. To give you another example - it's like citing the Westboro Baptist Church's teachings as evidence of why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. If missing bible pages were found tomorrow that explicitly stated that the gays are cool, it's highly unlikely that the Westboro church would just adopt that and drop their agenda. It defines them and gives them purpose. They're ignorant to anything that challenges their view. No matter what the events are - they are going to say the exact same thing.
That's no different to Rita. Evidence is irrelevant. Context, irrelevant. Rita will always take the controversial and socially conservative line. Even if there's not one to be taken. To be perfectly blunt - even if it was acknowledged by all, even people as cynical as you, Rita would still condemn it. As she has shown no ability to ever see both sides of a story, why should she be considered a reliable source?
~~
Your argument was just to tell me that 'nobody should take my word as credible if I can't argue the facts' - the exact same argument I'm using to discredit Rita - I'm saying she can't argue the facts, therefore her word is not credible. And if you're using that line to 'discredit me' (and you wouldn't be using it unless you believed it a valid way to discredit someone) it just doesn't make sense, as I used the line that you're using as my substantive point. In other words, how can I not be arguing the facts in your eyes when I used a line of argument you yourself saw fit to use to try and discredit me.
I'm aware that last paragraph is meta as * but if anyone can make sense of it, it highlights the extent to which you'll move the goalposts to suit your argument. Not only that, but I think it's ridiculous that you just try and 'define' what the facts are. It's both arrogant and condescending. If that's how you wish to talk, go ahead. But arrogance and derision won't gain you a thing. Your whole post is a giant straw man. As expected when there's no leg to stand on.
I'll concede - the whole thing could have gone down better. But even if I saw Goodes' conduct as questionable, I'm going to hold it against him and use it to discredit future arguments. You're expecting perfection out of humans. Emotive beings. In an emotional setting. Rarely is a situation handled perfectly, let alone one so emotionally charged. People make mistakes, people handle things poorly. Expecting perfect decision making in such a no-win situation is just setting the bar unreasonably high.
Did he name and shame her? Last I heard, her identity was protected as much as possible. To nab some quote's from Kristof 's excellent post, let's look at how Goodes shamed her and vilified her, as you claim.
'Goodes said he is not blaming the girl, saying she deserved to be supported and educated about why the racist comment was unacceptable.'
'I don't put any blame on her'
'Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please'
'I just hope that people give the 13 year old girl the same sort of support because she needs it, her family needs it, and the people around them need it.'
'I don't want people to go after this young girl.'
'It's not her fault, she's 13, she's still so innocent, I don't put any blame on her'
'I guarantee she has no idea right now how it makes people feel to call them an ape.'
I'm pretty satisfied that Goodes repeatedly tried to make this girl out to be innocent, blameless and in need of support, not shame. I'm not sure how one can look at the events of the time and not think he's trying his best to protect her, without ignoring the wider issue.
It's almost as if you expected him to just let it slide. Allow and reinforce racist comments to protect the abuser because they're a teenager. You're blaming a victim of abuse (who wanted nothing but protection for their abuser) for the way the abuser was highlighted in the press. He couldn't control how the press reacted to it all.
This girl, unintentionally, represented a wider issue. Should we just have ignored that issue to protect her?
