[mike777]

mrdct, on Nov 16 2007, 02:41 AM, said:

What was the topic here again?

In a civilised society the only place where free speech should exist as an absolute right is in a sound-proof room when you are alone. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fruitcake.

Insane

free speech

absoulte


insane

[mrdct]

So mike, is it OK for me to racially incite violence or advocate paedophilia?

[helene_t]

Pedophilia is ok with me. I do have some issues with pedosexuality, though. Of course if someone argues that pedosexuality and/or racist violence should be decriminalized I will acknowledge his or her right to say so, but as long as it is a crime I don't think it should be allowed to encourage it.

[mike777]

mrdct, on Nov 16 2007, 04:47 AM, said:

So mike, is it OK for me to racially incite violence or advocate paedophilia?

insane

[foo]

Let's start by saying that I have relatives in active service in the US military. I have relatives who have been highly decorated, some posthumously, in that service. I also have relatives who are Conscientious Objectors. Both sorts consider(ed) themselves highly patriotic. None of them are very happy with the man presently serving as POTUS even as they do everything they can to support the ideals of the USA and their fellow citizens serving in the Armed Forces (or any other form of government service).

Anyone who thinks that Patriotism means supporting one's government leaders no matter how one feels about their actions is wrong and needs to reread The Federalist Papers and the words of such people as Thomas Paine (the likes without whom there would be no USA).

Americans have an historical precedent given to them by those founding fathers of an OBLIGATION to question their leaders and peacefully object when those leaders are not speaking and acting up to the standards they as citizens feel are appropriate. Especially when those words and deeds are leading to the deaths of their fellow citizens. Especially when those words and deeds are leading to what they feel are attacks on the rights their ancestors died establishing or protecting.

I also suggest everyone go listen to the speech Michael Douglas makes at the end of the movie _The American President_ if they want a better idea of what it really means to be an American Citizen.

In this context, it is amazing to me that the actions of the Venice Cup winners in Shanghai have caused such controversy.

1= They did not make an overt political statement. They said that they, like the majority of Americans, did not vote for the current Chief Executive.
a= Mr Bush won the electoral vote. Not the popular vote.
b= Mr Bush has had the lowest approval rating of any president in history. Nixon included.
c= Mr Bush is an anti-Semite when many of those who play Bridge are Jewish.
(...He's also anti-gay, and anti-minority, and... all that goes with being a proud member of what is presently called the White Religious Right in the USA.)
d= Mr Bush has engaged in words and deeds that many consider to violate the principles documented in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
e= Americans traveling abroad are presently consistently being "put on the spot" by foreigners about the present American leadership. That one might want to distance oneself from the leadership in order to stop being "put on the spot" is only human.

Disaproving of the human serving as POTUS is not the same as disaproving of the USA or being unpatriotic to the USA. It can't be. The USA would cease to exist as a democracy the instant that became true. On that sad day those who want to destroy the USA will have won.

2= The folks laughing during the US national anthem were in the audience, not members of USA1.

3= Nonetheless, the members of USA1, like any other public figures, have an obligation to comport themselves to certain standards of public behavior. The right of Free Speech does not allow for one to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater or to do the metaphorical equivalent without consequence.

Even though USA1's actions were no where near as risky or inflamatory, still they must bear responsibility for whatever reaction those actions precipitated,
They had the absolute right to do what they did no matter what anyone else thinks about their taste in doing so. They also have an absolute obligation to fully "take the heat" for those actions.

If in the process of taking said heat some members of USA1 feel they are subjected to more than fair pressure or consequences, they then have the right to seek legal recourse for that perceived imbalance.

Enough said. Now let's get back to Bridge.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Nov 15 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 15 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

TLG said:

jonottawa, on Nov 15 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

You, as a Canadian, can have your limited freedom of expression with your notwithstanding clauses and whatnot.  Americans made it the FIRST amendment for a reason. 

The Americans did in fact include freedom of expression in the FIRST amendment for a reason, but not the reason you suggest.

that was uncalled for... a point was (supposedly) in the process of being made

The point being made was, it seems to me, a ugly, chauvinistic assertion that Americans have a privileged place in the world because of their 'freedom' rights: rights that Canadians, amongst others, don't have.~~

it was sarcasm, mike... sometimes things don't translate well in this medium, i should have used a smiley or something... sorry for the misunderstanding

[mrdct]

This is not a free speech issue. It is about how one should conduct one's self when playing on the sporting field in international competition.

One should play the game to the best of one's ability, win with grace but lose with humility, accept the bad breaks but be thankful when things go well, have a nice post mortem but don't labour the point, don't call the director unneccesarily but play by the rules, enjoy the victory banquet but don't drink too much, treat others as you would like to be treated yourself, learn about other cultures but leave your politics at home, do some sightseeing and vote for whomever you want to when you get back home (if indeed that is the way leaders are selected in your country).

When playing on the sporting field in international competition, "Miss Manners" has a lot more going for her than the Constitution of the United Stated of America.

What the VCTMs did was inappropriate and in clear contravention of the terms and conditions under which they had agreed to represent the USBF.

What the VCTMs did was, by any reasonable person's measure, NOT the way sportsfans would like to see athletes behaving on the victory dias.

It's not a hanging offence, but for goodness' sake say a real "sorry", agree to not do it again and live happily every after.

The US form of democracy is not perfect, nor is any other. Other forms of goverment have had varying levels of success in deliverying peace, welfare and prosperity to their peoples, but I'm not aware of any government that has totally got it right so far. Such is the nature of the animal that we are.

My personal prefence (and one unlikely to get involved in the war on terror) is an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

[hotShot]

mrdct, on Nov 16 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

What the VCTMs did was, by any reasonable person's measure, NOT the way sportsfans would like to see athletes behaving on the victory dias.

I can't let this sort of rhetorical trick uncommented.

You are implying that anyone with a different opinion is an unreasonable person.
You are implying that you are speaking for all sport fans (or at least a big majority of them).

I did not see any riot at the ceremony and i did not hear of any bridge world wide commotion about it. They should apologize to those who feel offended, but who are those (other than the USBF) ?

My impression is that there is a scale from:
- what they did was ok
- it was bad taste, they should just apologize and lets forget about it
- they violated rules, but it was no big deal. They should apologize, and we will have to make sure something like that (or worse) won't happen again
- they have to be punished hard

[foo]

Everyplace is a place where the principles of Free Speech apply or there is no place where they apply. The issue is that stark.

OTOH, no one has the right to force others to listen to what they don't want to hear. Nor is Free Speech a license to be rude.

They had the right to say what they did. That's free speech. They also have the twin obiligations to conduct themselves appropriately to the circumstances and their station and to take the consequences of that speech if it requires so.

That said consequences must be measured to the degree of the infraction, and that they have the right to go to court if they feel it is not, is also self evident.

[keylime]

Anyone that is trying to uphold the free speech banner refuses to accept this simple truth:

Once one leaves their birth country, or a country where one becomes a citizen of, any application of what is one's normal customs and rights are no longer valid.

I have had the experience of not only being a citizen of a country (the U.S.), but also go through the process to become a permanent resident of another country (Canada). One of the tenets of the process in Canada that I had to undergo was gaining an understanding of customs and normalization within Canada.

This was an eyeopener. In Canada there exists a sense of restorative justice, unlike here where due process and the rule of law is prevalent. Thusly the mindset is very different - one approach espouses looking at the incident as a global view to the community versus the other which solely seeks removal of the offender from society.

The point I want to make is, one's rights when abroad are not a transferable commodity that is expected to be honored at the destination. We are merely guests of the host country, and thusly, should be reasonably expected to attempt to adhere and adapt to the norms of that locale. And in most locations in the world, using a platform of a positive accomplishment and then contorting it for a personalized, nonlocal view that can be construed as disparaging, is not socially acceptable, regardless of whether or not the view has any merit (my very strong opinion is that their sign has the tinge and odor of obnoxiousness).

Frankly, to apologize for being an American, is criminal upon itself. It would be analogous to apologizing for being Asian, or white, or black, or female. It is a flat denial of one of the primary components of the person: the sense of country, of nationality, of identity.

I have very little sympathy towards the VC team. They rightly deserve strong sanction.

[kenrexford]

jonottawa, on Nov 16 2007, 12:48 AM, said:

Aight, the joke was a little over-the-top and I've deleted it. It was meant to poke fun at men who complain that women have women's only events and men don't, but I asked a female friend of mine what she thought of it and she said it sounded a little sexist. Fair enough.

I don't see what your problem with Jill Levin is if she is the one responsible for abolishing Men's events and you think it was an archaic concept that was good to drop.

Why don't you take the next step and sue to get Women's events dropped as well?

You can delete the words, but the message was heard.

The main problem that I had with the message is simple to articulate. And, this is somewhat relevant to the greater picture of what this post is about and why there is so much in the way of heated debate.

I noted a hypocrisy problem, an inconsistency of thought. I despise arguments that claim logic but have illogical agenda behind it. Fighting to shut down the Men's Pairs but playing in the Women's Pairs is hypocritical, but more importantly to me it is logically inconsistent. That offends me.

Your response juxtaposed gender-neutrality righteous indignation and claims of evolved superiority with devolved vulgarity that exposed latent sexism. You conferred upon my comments Limbaugh mindset, an ad hominem attack without basis, and reconstructed my objection as if it was about the lawsuit (that I endorsed), an easy case to defend, rather than my objection to the logical inconsistency and hypocrisy of the litigant earning a living (and a podiunm for political statements) as a women's-only competitor, a much less easily defended circumstance.

[jkljkl]

Hello,

I have some problems understanding the issue of the financial damage to the USBF. This is likely due of not knowing precisely what the USBF is and how it came up.

As far as I understand it a puppet was needed, likely due of trying to become olympic, for sending USA teams to international competitions (since the ACBL is not confined to the USA). So the ACBL and the ABA transferred to the USBF the right to select the partecipating teams.

The financial dependence on ACBL money seems to indicate too that the USBF is more an ACBL subcompany.

Can someone clear the matter for me?

And on a second thought, lets assume that the USBF had opposed the ACBL request of hard punishment so that they would not get any money in future. What would happen?

Thank you,
stefan

[joshs]

mrdct, on Nov 16 2007, 08:19 AM, said:

This is not a free speech issue. It is about how one should conduct one's self when playing on the sporting field in international competition.

One should play the game to the best of one's ability, win with grace but lose with humility, accept the bad breaks but be thankful when things go well, have a nice post mortem but don't labour the point, don't call the director unneccesarily but play by the rules, enjoy the victory banquet but don't drink too much, treat others as you would like to be treated yourself, learn about other cultures but leave your politics at home, do some sightseeing and vote for whomever you want to when you get back home (if indeed that is the way leaders are selected in your country).

While I agree with 98% of that paragraph (most of it reflects the ideas of sportsmanship and fair play), I don't think that:
"learn about other cultures"
and
"leave your politics at home"

are even remotely compatable. if everyone left their politics at home, how could I learn about them? How can I learn that there are ranges of opinions and values coming from different countries, and what those values are? Did you think that culture does not include the range of values in that society?

Now, perhaps, symplified slogans from the podium are not nearly as effective as substantive discussions with your fellow "athletes" for sharing your "culture." But thats another matter (its a debate about quality of communication vs quantity)....

To me, the main goal of having international competitions are for people to see:
"Wow there are these people out there who share my love of sport and my sense of fairplay, but somehow are different than me. I think I should learn more about them."

Note: The reason to play in international competitions is to have the opportunity to compete at a high level in your given sport. This is distinct from the reason to hold these events.

P.S. I wonder how nice life would be on Annares? It would be interesting to find out...

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Nov 16 2007, 10:57 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 16 2007, 12:48 AM, said:

Aight, the joke was a little over-the-top and I've deleted it.  It was meant to poke fun at men who complain that women have women's only events and men don't, but I asked a female friend of mine what she thought of it and she said it sounded a little sexist.  Fair enough.

I don't see what your problem with Jill Levin is if she is the one responsible for abolishing Men's events and you think it was an archaic concept that was good to drop.

Why don't you take the next step and sue to get Women's events dropped as well?

You can delete the words, but the message was heard.

The main problem that I had with the message is simple to articulate. And, this is somewhat relevant to the greater picture of what this post is about and why there is so much in the way of heated debate.

I noted a hypocrisy problem, an inconsistency of thought. I despise arguments that claim logic but have illogical agenda behind it. Fighting to shut down the Men's Pairs but playing in the Women's Pairs is hypocritical, but more importantly to me it is logically inconsistent. That offends me.

Your response juxtaposed gender-neutrality righteous indignation and claims of evolved superiority with devolved vulgarity that exposed latent sexism. You conferred upon my comments Limbaugh mindset, an ad hominem attack without basis, and reconstructed my objection as if it was about the lawsuit (that I endorsed), an easy case to defend, rather than my objection to the logical inconsistency and hypocrisy of the litigant earning a living (and a podiunm for political statements) as a women's-only competitor, a much less easily defended circumstance.

I sympathize with your position on this, Ken. But my position is subtly different. The hyprocrisy began, I think, with the ACBL's typically hypocritical reaction to litigation: a reaction that is consistent with the way the ACBL always handles lawsuits, from what I can tell as a long time member.

Logically, when Levin sued, the ACBL had two clear options. One would be to argue that it is a private organization, catering to the wishes of its members, run by elected representatives and that offering one men's and one women's event per tournament, within the context of far more common 'open' events was not discriminatory etc. The other would be to accept that gender-limited events were inherently discriminatory and would all be abandoned.


The latter would have been the only possible outcome had the case gone to trial and Levin had prevailed. She had to have known this. So either she counted on the cowardice of the ACBL (a fair bet) or she was willing to risk losing womens' events as well as having the mens' banned. So she was, I assume, genuine in he stance that she wanted to compete (and wanted all women to be forced to compete) in open events.

As it happens, the ACBL caved and got her to go away by offering her something that must surely have been almost impossible to reject....

Continuing the litigation would have been very expensive and not risk-free. Instead, the ACBL offered her the best of both worlds...an outcome far more attractive, financially and personally, than winning the lawsuit. She got the right to compete in every event she wanted... no more mens events. And she got her happy hunting ground of (easier) womens' events to make money in.

I don't blame her at all if, in the intervening 20 years or so, she has come to realize that her best hope of winning major titles and of making big bucks lies in playing in the womens' events.

My guess is that if the ACBL had stood on principle (which it never does), then either we'd still be having mens events (my first regional win was a mens pairs and I was very proud because it was the toughest event in the tournament) or Levin would be a second or third-tier pro (I hasten to add, that I am morally certain that she is a truly fine player, better, for sure, than I am). But, who knows... maybe she'd have gotten even better if she had in fact been forced to play in open events all these years.. maybe she'd be an Open Champion.

It is ironic, not an example of hypocrisy, that her lawsuit, intended to force women pros to elevate their game, did nothing of the sort, not even for her, despite her 'winning'.

Maybe the ACBL wasn't cowardly after all. Maybe the Old Boys Club knew what they were doing: yes, give the 'girls' what they think they want....for as long as we keep womens' events available, economic pressure and human nature will keep the women pros down in the 'minors'. Meanwhile, we still have knockouts and major championships as predominantly male preserves.

So I don't see Levin as hypocritical in earning her living in womens events.

I do see the entire team as misguided in refusing to recognize that their conduct was inappropriate.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Nov 16 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

So I don't see Levin as hypocritical in earning her living in womens events.

She brought a lawsuit claiming that holding gender-based events were discriminatory. She (and her husband, and the two others) settled that lawsuit by agreeing to a benefit for her but not a benefit for others (men). This resulted in her financial benefit, as well.

The hypocrisy is obvious to me.

"I do see the entire team as misguided in refusing to recognize that their conduct was inappropriate."

We agree 100% here.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Nov 16 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 16 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

So I don't see Levin as hypocritical in earning her living in womens events.

She brought a lawsuit claiming that holding gender-based events were discriminatory. She (and her husband, and the two others) settled that lawsuit by agreeing to a benefit for her but not a benefit for others (men). This resulted in her financial benefit, as well.

The hypocrisy is obvious to me.

"I do see the entire team as misguided in refusing to recognize that their conduct was inappropriate."

We agree 100% here.

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that there was at least one National Men's Event with only a National Women's Event (and no National Open Events) opposite.

At this time Jill and her former husband did not have a National Event to play in so they did benefit from the introduction of Open Events that resulted from their lawsuit.

I believe the lawsuit was all about this (as opposed to being about women's bridge). At the time Jill and Bob were regular partners and I don't think Jill was involved in women's bridge at all (let alone playing women's bridge professionally).

If I am right about all of this then I don't think the fair to label Jill a hypocrite for first being involved in this lawsuit and later being in involved in women's bridge. These 2 things are not related.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jtfanclub]

ArcLight, on Nov 15 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

On a somewhat different topic, I think a 1 year suspension is rather harsh. And the threat that it will be even longer if they don't agree is extremely unfair.

If the USBF or ACBL wants to punish them, I think 1 year is far too long. Why not 3 months? With a probabtion condition of much longer than 1 year.

If it were an ACBL ban for a year, absolutely it would be too harsh.

But take a look at this...

http://usbf.org/inde...pper&Itemid=165

November 2007...nothing
December 2007...nothing
January 2008...nothing
February 2008....nothing
March 2008...nothing
April 2008...nothing
May 20th-26th US Women's Bridge Championships
May 28th-June 6th US Bridge Championships
June 16th-19th US Senior Bridge Championships
Rest of 2008...nothing.

So a 3 month suspension from USBF events doesn't mean anything, unless it included May, in which case it may as well be a year.

I'm not sure they can be banned from ACBL events that allow non-ACBL members, but the USBF is technically a members only event. They should be able to disinvite anybody they please for any reason they want.

I think a year is fair.

[jonottawa]

kenrexford, on Nov 16 2007, 03:57 PM, said:

You can delete the words, but the message was heard.

The main problem that I had with the message is simple to articulate. And, this is somewhat relevant to the greater picture of what this post is about and why there is so much in the way of heated debate.

I noted a hypocrisy problem, an inconsistency of thought. I despise arguments that claim logic but have illogical agenda behind it. Fighting to shut down the Men's Pairs but playing in the Women's Pairs is hypocritical, but more importantly to me it is logically inconsistent. That offends me.

Your response juxtaposed gender-neutrality righteous indignation and claims of evolved superiority with devolved vulgarity that exposed latent sexism. You conferred upon my comments Limbaugh mindset, an ad hominem attack without basis, and reconstructed my objection as if it was about the lawsuit (that I endorsed), an easy case to defend, rather than my objection to the logical inconsistency and hypocrisy of the litigant earning a living (and a podiunm for political statements) as a women's-only competitor, a much less easily defended circumstance.

The intended 'message' of the joke was solely to poke fun at or tweak those men who oppose the existence of women's events. It was poorly worded and could fairly be construed as insulting to ALL participants in such events (which was not what I intended.) That's why I deleted it. Then I posted a link to it (expecting you to continue mewling about how horrible it was to people who hadn't seen it instead of graciously acknowledging that I'd worded it clumsily and moving on.)

There is no hypocrisy in saying that the toughest events should be open to all but that there should be Flighted events, Junior events, Senior events and Women events. Keeping the top events open to everyone is about equality of opportunity, a value I support. Allowing people who don't want to play against the toughest competition overall but who want to test themselves against the toughest competition in their peer group also is something I'm more than comfortable with. I've even played in the Red Ribbon Pairs a couple of times.

Your last paragraph is laden with errors/misconceptions.

Abolishing men's pairs isn't about gender-neutrality, it's about equality of opportunity. The top men tend to play better, on average, than the top women. Very few would disagree with that. If believing that makes me sexist (latent or otherwise,) guilty.

I conferred on the 'let's bring the men's pairs back' mindset an anachronistic 'failure to evolve.' Almost noone is running around lambasting Jill Levin for abolishing the men's pairs events who don't support the existence of men's pairs events. I'm not a mind-reader.

Lots of people earn their livings in ways that don't advance humanity. What do/did you do for a living?

[jonottawa]

Fred's explanation makes me think even more highly of Jill.

And Mike's pining for the good old days:

"My guess is that if the ACBL had stood on principle (which it never does), then either we'd still be having mens events (my first regional win was a mens pairs and I was very proud because it was the toughest event in the tournament) ..."

...is exactly the kind of failure to evolve I was talking about.

If Jill Levin, or Helen Sobel (or to use a Canadian example, Laurie McIntyre) is playing regularly and exclusively in a mixed partnership, trying to make it as a top pair, who the hell is anyone to tell her that she has to sit on the sidelines at a Nationals while other players (in many cases, lesser players) compete in the "toughest event"?

[kenrexford]

jonottawa,Nov 16 2007, 01:36 PM:
"The intended 'message' of the joke was solely to poke fun at or tweak those men who oppose the existence of women's events. It was poorly worded and could fairly be construed as insulting to ALL participants in such events (which was not what I intended.) That's why I deleted it. Then I posted a link to it (expecting you to continue mewling about how horrible it was to people who hadn't seen it instead of graciously acknowledging that I'd worded it clumsily and moving on.)
"There is no hypocrisy in saying that the toughest events should be open to all but that there should be Flighted events, Junior events, Senior events and Women events. Keeping the top events open to everyone is about equality of opportunity, a value I support. Allowing people who don't want to play against the toughest competition overall but who want to test themselves against the toughest competition in their peer group also is something I'm more than comfortable with. I've even played in the Red Ribbon Pairs a couple of times.
"Your last paragraph is laden with errors/misconceptions.
"Abolishing men's pairs isn't about gender-neutrality, it's about equality of opportunity. The top men tend to play better, on average, than the top women. Very few would disagree with that. If believing that makes me sexist (latent or otherwise,) guilty.
"I conferred on the 'let's bring the men's pairs back' mindset an anachronistic 'failure to evolve.' Almost noone is running around lambasting Jill Levin for abolishing the men's pairs events who don't support the existence of men's pairs events. I'm not a mind-reader.
"Lots of people earn their livings in ways that don't advance humanity. What do/did you do for a living?"



I consider myself to be a tad more advanced in my thinking than your words express, and yet I was the one attacked as if I was a Neanderthal.

First, I cannot accept the suggestion that the wording choice was poor. It was actually not poor. It expressed what you continue to express. By tweaking or poking fun at men who oppose the existence of women's events, you are separating out people. Why not poke fun at women for opposing men-only events? How about poking fun at people who oppose race-specific events? Would you poke fun at men who, for instance, complained of domestic violence against them by women? Legitimate gender neutrality is gender neutrality.

Second, I cannot accept the idea that we need to protect a class from tougher competition if that class is gender. I can understand age (seniors, youth) or experience (flighted events). I cannot understand gender-based distinctions, at all. I suppose I could understand it if the gender distinction was relevant (physical size, for example), but not when we are talking about an intellect-based game.

You implicitly admit, at least, that you pre-judged me. I am that person who opposes gender-based events but does not want Men's Pairs back. I despise the existence of Mixed Pairs, as well. I want Pairs.

How do I earn my living? Protecting the proper enforcement of the United States Constitution and of the Ohio Constitution. If you believe that these documents have added to humanity, then I suppose I'm doing a lot more than most.

------

And to Fred's comment. I understand the idea. However, I have been barred from playing in Mixed events because my partner and I happen to have the same sex organs. That nuance does not really change the problem, IMO. I agree that it is difficult to handle her problem. I have played in a Mixed Pairs event (horror story) myself, which seems inconsistent with my stance. For her, the sponsorship probably is not as available for an Open event, such that she is somewhat forced to play in Women's events.

However, there is one glaring truth. When anyone initiates a lawsuit claiming something like gender discrimination, that person stands as a surrogate for everyone. Had she elected to continue the fight, and get the Women's Pairs abolished, then she would not have the problem of where to play. She did not. That may well have been her best course, financially and for acclaim reasons. But, she settled in a way that was incomplete.

That may have been a practical solution for her (and for her husband). However, you cannot opt to compromise principle for practical reasons, after grabbing the spotlight, and then expect those of us who agree with her principle to look the other way. I do notice that she waited until 2004 to play in a Women's Event at a NABC, apparently. I did not know that and applaud that move. I also realize that she did not take up her fight with the WBF itself, which may have been hopeless anyway. And, perhaps the criticism is a tad harsh under the circumstances.

But, it still rubs me the wrong way. This sounds too much like principle being used as a tool to achieve one's own interests rather than principle determining the result and operating within that principled result. The result suggests the former. That may be coincidental and unfortunate.