What fun

What fun?

Yes.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvlxDcALQ6g

That was epic.

Nothing will ever top that. NOTHING.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SEdwr_j3aI&feature=user

Aptimus! I refuse to fill out yer stinkin' forms! -.-

*thwaps EZ-Board and "network.aptimus.com/" with Ultima Weapon and Ragnarok while winning*

*And re-takes the win*

*re-retakes the win*

I haven't posted in this in months

And so it'll continue!

** edited rules 'cause I can and you non-mod, non-admin people can't while winning **

fffff

wtf is this?

lolcat?

Delicious

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp The facts of this case are as follows. Judith Watkins was the first ever female football player at Jefferson High School, and was originally a subject of controversy. However she ceased to be controversial after making significant contributions to the team. However, at the beginning of her 2nd season, the coach announced she was leaving the team due to medical reasons. An investigating reporter found out indirectly through an interview with a disgruntled assistant coach that Judith actually left the team due to the fact that she was pregnant. After confirming this with other staff members, the reporter returns to his producer, who as the moral agent must decide whether or not it is ethical to broadcast this information.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Some conflicts that are set up in this case study include the publics right to know versus privacy and the role of the student versus the role of the athlete.
Analysis
In terms of the publics right to know versus the privacy of the individual, it is impossible to decide which principle is more important overall. They must be weighed on a case by case basis. In this particular case, it is difficult because a double-standard exists. It is assumed, in areas where high school sports are covered, that you will cover the victories and exultations, yet ignore the scandals and losses. In my mind a double standard cannot exist. If the press has made a decision that these football players are newsworthy, then they are always newsworthy. If they decide that they are not, then they are never newsworthy, and can never be covered until such an event occurs that might make them newsworthy. In the area of the role of the student versus the role of the athlete, it is not the responsibility of the press to decide which is more important. The reporter cannot go around making each childs life decision for him or her. In this case, Judith Watkins has decided to become an athlete with a school that holds athletics as primary over academics. She has already made her choice. It should not be the presss job to second-guess it.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp In this case, I believe that the moral agent has a duty to the public first of all. The moral agents station has covered the football team all year through thick and thin. The people are relying on the moral agent to provide them with the truth. Even a withholding of information would be a betrayal of this trust. Secondly, I believe that the moral agent has an obligation to Judith Watkins. Whether or not they decide to go forward with this story, Judith Watkins will be affected. There are too many possibilities to say for sure, but 50% of the possibilities will be impossibilities based on the moral agents decision. The final obligation is to the larger journalism community. The escalation of coverage of high school sports is an issue that is only going to get larger. Journalists (and lawyers) across the country are going to look to this theory as precedent in deciding future cases dealing with high school athletes.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp One theory that could possibly apply to this case is Rawls theory of Social Justice. Egalitarianism would state that if we treated Judith Watkins one way during last season, then we must continue to treat her that way, as her status as a newsworthy subject has not changed. If anything, her newsworthiness has heightened due to the scandal surrounding her departure, and as a result the moral agent has an even greater responsibility to expose her decision to leave. Aristotles Golden Mean has a similar, but slightly less extreme solution. If the two extremes in this situation are to expose her, or keep silent, the Golden Mean would be to release the information but in a manner dignifying to Ms. Watkins.
Decision
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Taking the position of the producer Oliver Holmes, I believe that the cable system should run a story covering the actual reasons behind Judith Watkins leaving the team. The fact that the coach called a press conference to inform the press the false reasons for Judith leaving alone says that he considers the story to be newsworthy. If the cable systems were overly concerned about their obligation to treat the high school athletes as students rather than celebrities, that obligation should have been addressed before they first began covering them. As a result, a judgment on this issue has partially already been rendered
This theory is based on Rawls demand that the story be broached, however Id like to temper it with Aristotle. I am not suggesting that the cable system release the story right out on the breaking news. The reporters should approach Ms. Watkins in private and inform her that her trainers and coaches are giving this information away without regard for her well-being. Offer her the chance to tell her story before it eventually gets out through others and makes the already churning rumor mill even worse. If Ms. Watkins still refuses, inform her that you plan to run the story with or without her testimony. This way, even if she refuses to co-operate, she still has time to make adjustments so that the when the story breaks it will not affect her as badly. As a result, she is still treated equally under Egalitarianism, but a compromise is reached through the Golden Mean.

fffffffffffffffffffffffffff

fffffffffffffffffffffffffff +1

DNE

DINNER

MAH BOI

squish

Never.

I've never had THIS kind of fun before!