collapse

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: espn-double standard much??  (Read 65138 times)

mu-rara

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #150 on: July 24, 2014, 01:23:22 PM »
So Jeff Fisher is lying.  Got it.

PR
Spin
Stretching
etc.

Presidential Press Secretaries (from at least Nixon to the present) get large dollars for doing this.  Journalists who want to increase their pay become PR consultants.  One of the most important jobs for a Fortune 500 CEO is to guide how the public views their company.  Are they all liars?

The boiler plate for how to handle any Michael Sam story was written weeks before the draft.  The only blank was which team would get it.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #151 on: July 24, 2014, 01:23:28 PM »
Not to mention the much more ancient societies that practiced polyandry now if you were to make that case to a literalist their head would explode at the concept.  

I do now. I ate crow a few posts down ...
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #152 on: July 24, 2014, 01:24:25 PM »
I had a Theo prof at MU, Dr Zemler.  That guy was awesome, former artillery officer and became a theologian.  I had him for a couple of classes and one of the biggest concept he talked about that really stuck with me, was the thought of the Bible as an evolutionary book.  Societies and people evolve into higher and higher order things(in theory  ;D) and if you look at the bible in the historical context it is the story of evolving society into a more and more stable platform.  Eye for an eye was evolution because it put an end to blood feuds that would wipe out entire families.  That eventually evolved into turn the other cheek.  Lots and lots of instances like this.

My whole point, society evolves, we can look to the past for context and guidance but it shouldn't be the standard we stay with.

This. It's amazing how many people don't get even the simplest idea that the Bible wasn't written in English and therefore it is an imperfect translation of a language spoken 3500+ years ago.
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #153 on: July 24, 2014, 01:25:50 PM »
This. It's amazing how many people don't get even the simplest idea that the Bible wasn't written in English and therefore it is an imperfect translation of a language spoken 3500+ years ago.

What? I thought Jesus, Rick Santorum and Tebow wrote it!!
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #154 on: July 24, 2014, 01:27:56 PM »
This. It's amazing how many people don't get even the simplest idea that the Bible wasn't written in English and therefore it is an imperfect translation of a language spoken 3500+ years ago.


Not only that, but ancient Hebrews were not really a literal people.  Heavy into symbolism, metophors and the like. 

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #155 on: July 24, 2014, 01:29:24 PM »
What? I thought Jesus, Rick Santorum and Tebow wrote it!!

And the Constitution....with Baby Jesus!
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

reinko

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2696
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #156 on: July 24, 2014, 01:33:50 PM »
What's crazy is a significant % of folks believe this is for real.


swoopem

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1269
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #157 on: July 24, 2014, 01:35:59 PM »
OK, I'm a dummy. Sometimes, sarcasm gets lost in the translation.

I hereby do not condemn you to getting stoned to death on the village square.

I mean, if one is gonna get stoned, it should be a joyous occasion, with much passing of the bowl and then Doritos afterward!

And good tunes. You always have to have good tunes
Bring back FFP!!!

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #158 on: July 24, 2014, 03:43:13 PM »
And the Constitution....with Baby Jesus!

One of my neighbors here in Bumblef@ck, N.C., puts out a lawn decoration every Christmas of Santa looking over Baby Jesus in the manger. I can't believe Rudolph and Mary aren't there, too!
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #159 on: July 24, 2014, 04:10:02 PM »
PR
Spin
Stretching
etc.

Presidential Press Secretaries (from at least Nixon to the present) get large dollars for doing this.  Journalists who want to increase their pay become PR consultants.  One of the most important jobs for a Fortune 500 CEO is to guide how the public views their company.  Are they all liars?

The boiler plate for how to handle any Michael Sam story was written weeks before the draft.  The only blank was which team would get it.

I think this is a good point, I mean, what's jeff fisher supposed to say?

However, if Fisher's defense, outside of Dungy's comments, I haven't heard much of anything about Sam. There was the OWN thing that seemed to die out pretty quick, and I haven't heard anything since... so Fisher might be telling the truth.

I mean, once they are out on the field, it's not an issue at all is it?

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #160 on: July 24, 2014, 04:20:28 PM »
One of my neighbors here in Bumblef@ck, N.C., puts out a lawn decoration every Christmas of Santa looking over Baby Jesus in the manger. I can't believe Rudolph and Mary aren't there, too!

Was the Easter Bunny busy that he couldn't make the family photo?
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 23345
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #161 on: July 24, 2014, 04:31:07 PM »
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

brandx

  • Guest
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #162 on: July 24, 2014, 04:36:55 PM »
What's crazy is a significant % of folks believe this is for real.



Funny!  When I was a kid, I never saw pictures of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

reinko

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2696
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #163 on: July 24, 2014, 06:05:28 PM »
Via Drew Magary  from GQ and Deadspin,  feel like it's fitting with all of this "distraction"  talk.

Ray Rice's Lenient Suspension: Stop Treating Assault as a "Distraction"
Drew Magary
Photo: Ronald C. Modra/Getty Images

There is video. That is the difference. I don't know if the NFL or ESPN or the Baltimore Ravens are willing to acknowledge that there is video of running back Ray Rice dragging his fiancee's unconscious body out of an elevator, like she's a corpse in Blood Simple. But in handing down a measly two-game suspension for Rice this morning, all parties involved still seemed to act as if you couldn't open up Chrome and see it all unfold for yourself. Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome called it an "incident". SportsCenter's Twitter feed called it an "altercation." Ravens head coach John Harbaugh called it a "mistake," as if Rice had meant to hand his lady a vase of flowers when he knocked her out. It's all the same pattern of obfuscation you hear whenever a player or coach or owner does something awful.

But this time there is video.

I've cheered for players with criminal records. I've cheered on drunk drivers and guys who have committed assault and (for one season, at least) a guy who sent a picture of his cock to a lady without her asking. And the NFL and its TV partners are very good at taking any terrible incident and running it through a linguistic thresher to spit out summations like "incident". That allows them to refer to dragging a lady around like she's a bag of millet without you ever having to fully picture it in your mind. It is a verbal way of burying the past. It makes it that much easier for me to cheer on the occasional crapbag who comes blowing through my team's locker room.

But this time there is video. Go ahead and watch it for yourself. Watch it and you'll find that no amount of euphemistic wrangling can blunt the image, which is what makes virtually every formal statement made this morning about Ray Rice sound pathetic, hypocritical, and insulting. After all the crap the Ravens took earlier this year for shielding Rice from criticism, they still spent today expecting you to eat their bullcrap. Here's Harbaugh:

"I stand behind Ray. He's a heck of a guy. He's done everything right since. He makes a mistake, alright? He's going to have to pay a consequence. I think that's good for kids to understand it works that way."

Here's Newsome:

"That night was not typical of the Ray Rice we know and respect. We believe that he will not let that one night define who he is."

And here is Rice himself:

"Janay and I have learned from this. We have become better as a couple and as parents. I am better because of everything we have experienced since that night."

Well, see, now I'm gonna have to go knock my wife out and drag her out of an elevator because you found it to be such a useful team-building exercise. You can sense a profound impatience from every single one of these people when it comes to having to address the fact that Ray Rice dragged his unconscious fiancée out of an elevator. They treat it all as the ever-loathed distraction. They are like little children, pouting, as if to say, "Do we HAVE to talk about this?" and hoping the rest of America just lets it go.

But there's unnatural carnal knowledgeing video. I will always watch football and I will always enjoy football, but the NFL seems determined at every turn to put a bright shine on a game that, inside and out, is ugly. Look at Goodell sending his letter to Rice out with the league's formal announcement of the suspension, like he's lecturing him while standing in the center of a public square. Yeah. What a unnatural carnal knowledgeing hero that Ginger Hammer is. In the NFL, there is only the illusion of action…the illusion of terrible things being addressed with anything resembling seriousness. And that notion of them being shameful hypocrites gets harder to wash away by the day.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #164 on: July 24, 2014, 07:15:09 PM »
I think this is a good point, I mean, what's jeff fisher supposed to say?


On draft day, Jeff Fisher said all he had to say about inclusiveness, tolerance and not being worried about alleged distractions.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #165 on: July 24, 2014, 07:22:29 PM »

You're like a moth to a lightbulb. You can't help yourself.

A LOT of people on Twitter are stupid. They don't have reasonable points of view, and they just rant about crap.

It's both ends of the political spectrum, and it should be thrown out, not used as evidence of anything other than a lot of vocal people are stupid.

You run to this stuff as "proof"!, but it's just junk. Don't read it. Don't waste your time. It's gotcha BS.

It's nothing. Junk. BS. Garbage. Forget about it. Nonsense. Leave it. Outliers.


Outliers?  Hmm, don't think so.  I work in the entertainment world....there is no greater population of so called "tolerant" people than this industry and their limits for tolerance tend to end at the corner of relgion and family values.   I see it every day.  Not outliers at all.


ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #166 on: July 24, 2014, 07:27:52 PM »
I agree to everybody should be allowed to have their own views as long as those views are properly informed.  I had severe tourette syndrome growing up and some of my teachers used to kick me out of class because they were convinced I was faking it, after my doctor lectured them one still was convinced I was faking it.  That was her view ok she deserves it, the original uninformed view though is what people should be allowed to get up in arms about.  Same with say Dungy and his views regarding being gay.  

As far as tolerence including religion, it is.  See this link? https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/eleven-year-old-muslim-girl-harassed-after-declining-bible-school-principal-aclu-la-  

See intolerance covers religion as well, just not the religion you were hoping to get covered.  As far as religios views being covered or not, well congress will not make any laws with respect to a religion (establishment clause) thus you are free to practice your religion but using it as grounds for law to enforce discrimination (the situation for going against gay marriage) wouldn't be constitutional.  Finally, using religious views as an example for going against gay marriage would be tremendously more effective if those same people followed everything the bible says about marriage.  

Genesis states that essentially God's plan was marriage between cain and his sister.  

In Genesis Abraham is stated as the half brother of Sarah but I can't imagine that most of the bible guys (maybe in the south, pause for laughter) are going to be marrying their sister.  Not to mention adultery is considered a sin yet Sarah invited the maid to get in bed with Abraham, and then become his wife so the bible says multiple wives is traditional as well.  David had something like 8 wives, solomon 700, not to mention the huge quantity of concubines that the bible mentions. In the bible it also says that a woman must marry her rapist if he pays 50 pieces of silver but well I don't see anybody defending that part of the bible.  Jesus states that divorce is against the bible (though you can have as many wives as you want) But a ton of anti gay marriage christians have had divorces.  

Essentially this point is that using the bible is not an excuse for protecting "traditional" marriage when the bible's concept is all sorts of f'd up.  



Why do you assume I have anything against Islam?  I took the class at MU.  I work with two Muslims directly in my new gig, no issues at all. 

What I have to chuckle about is your opening paragraph about being "properly informed".  LOL.  Who gets to decide the properly informed part?  Just like your last sentence about the bible's concepts being f'd up.  Is that based on your Properly Informed viewpoint?

You see, this is the problem in all this.  Many folks think their view is the properly informed view and the other view sucks hairy balls.  Now, however, it is taken to a new level because you have folks not only saying someone else's view sucks, but they throw things around like homophobe, racist, etc, to try and control the argument.

Ministry of Truth....not that far away from it.   Seen the last few weeks how Oxford and Roget is now defining certain words?  It like someone just read 1984 in the last few months and started to roll it out.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #167 on: July 24, 2014, 07:29:06 PM »
This is just great.  The guy who complains about the media distraction, is the one who created it.  Classic.  NOt too mention, the head coach of his team, said it was not a distraction.  So who is right, you, or Jeff Fisher?

I'm sorry, he called up the media and said create this distraction?  Really?  LOL.

I hope Jeff Fisher is right and the kid sticks.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #168 on: July 24, 2014, 07:32:03 PM »
Actually, "traditional" marriage for thousands of years meant polygamy. Religions don't own the concept of marriage.

In some cases, that is correct.  In those cases, it was also still based on procreation and a male female relationship.  Is it right?  Who knows.  Sorry, at least for another two years, religions do own the concept of marriage as they are not required to marry two men, or two women.   That could change, but right now they actually do own it.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #169 on: July 24, 2014, 07:34:47 PM »
I'm in no way arguing for Chicos here, but IMHO you should be tolerant of that.  You don't have to like it, agree with it, or even listen to it without vomiting but you should be tolerant of someones beliefs and opinions.  Otherwise its censorship, justified or not.

Whether it's justified or not, once we decide this is an ok opinion to have and this is not you are restricting the flow of thought and ideas....not a good idea.

Ding ding ding.  Unfortunately, that's not how it works, especially for the tolerance lobby.  They immediately go into "you're racist, you're a bigot, you're a religious blah blah" and the tolerance nonsense goes right out the window. It's a defensive mechanism for them but the whole ruse of tolerance from these people is a canard.  It doesn't exist.  It is tolerance for those views for which THEY believe.  If someone has different views, than tolerance no longer exists and the justification for not allowing that tolerance is to label people they don't agree with with various names.

It's quite entertaining.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #170 on: July 24, 2014, 07:42:26 PM »
Me calling out bigoted opinions for being bigoted isn't "censorship." No one is arresting anyone for thinking terrible things. Making yourself immune to criticism and insults isn't how freedom of speech works. Tolerance allows enables bad behavior, but the lack of it doesn't obstruct it.

Who decides what is bigoted?  Is it when Macaca is mentioned in a speech but not when Hymie is mentioned in a speech? 

Is it when someone calls an African American an Uncle Tom or calls a white guy a redneck?

Is it when someone accepts gay marriage, but not when someone's religion says it shouldn't be accepted?  I can only take this to mean the Pope is bigoted.

This is where it gets so confusing.  Help me Oh Bee One Ken Obi, you are my only hope.


ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #171 on: July 24, 2014, 07:49:17 PM »
This. It's amazing how many people don't get even the simplest idea that the Bible wasn't written in English and therefore it is an imperfect translation of a language spoken 3500+ years ago.

I think many people get this.  Depending on your beliefs, they may also believe that certain church leaders have the spirit of God in them and communicate to their flock accordingly.  So whether the bible says it or not, when the pope says gay marriage isn't something the church supports, many are going to follow that lead.  I'm not supporting that view or opposing it, but showing  you a real world illustration that has nothing to do with the bible, but everything to do with a religious view.  It is hardly contained in Catholicism.  You may think it is patently wrong viewpoint.  You may be right.  You may be dead wrong.  Problem is, the tolerance folks have said if you don't go with one viewpoint, then you're a bigot, homophobe, etc. 

Interesting....

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #172 on: July 24, 2014, 07:56:29 PM »
On draft day, Jeff Fisher said all he had to say about inclusiveness, tolerance and not being worried about alleged distractions.

Hope it works out for Sam, Fisher, the Rams.  For the other teams that didn't take him, are they intolerant bigots, did they not think he was good enough to spend a draft pick, did they think he might be good enough but not worth the distraction? 

If the team before the Rams had taken Sam, would we not know how wonderfully tolerant and inclusive Fisher is?  Or is this the sole way in which is tolerance will be defined for the rest of time?  On the flip side, all of the great thing Dungy has done over the years which has lead to two man of the year awards for his work with the poor, inner city youths, etc, etc....are they wiped away because he said he wouldn't want the distractions in prepping his football team for the season by taking a marginal athlete while having a circus reality show follow him around?

Merely asking.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #173 on: July 24, 2014, 09:20:14 PM »
Hope it works out for Sam, Fisher, the Rams.  For the other teams that didn't take him, are they intolerant bigots, did they not think he was good enough to spend a draft pick, did they think he might be good enough but not worth the distraction? 

If the team before the Rams had taken Sam, would we not know how wonderfully tolerant and inclusive Fisher is?  Or is this the sole way in which is tolerance will be defined for the rest of time?  On the flip side, all of the great thing Dungy has done over the years which has lead to two man of the year awards for his work with the poor, inner city youths, etc, etc....are they wiped away because he said he wouldn't want the distractions in prepping his football team for the season by taking a marginal athlete while having a circus reality show follow him around?

Merely asking.

You are the King of the Hypothetical Situation.

When you change your screen name again, you should think about going with that.

“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

shiloh26

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: espn-double standard much??
« Reply #174 on: July 24, 2014, 11:01:04 PM »
Why do you assume I have anything against Islam?  I took the class at MU.  I work with two Muslims directly in my new gig, no issues at all. 

What I have to chuckle about is your opening paragraph about being "properly informed".  LOL.  Who gets to decide the properly informed part?  Just like your last sentence about the bible's concepts being f'd up.  Is that based on your Properly Informed viewpoint?

You see, this is the problem in all this.  Many folks think their view is the properly informed view and the other view sucks hairy balls.  Now, however, it is taken to a new level because you have folks not only saying someone else's view sucks, but they throw things around like homophobe, racist, etc, to try and control the argument.

Ministry of Truth....not that far away from it.   Seen the last few weeks how Oxford and Roget is now defining certain words?  It like someone just read 1984 in the last few months and started to roll it out.

Well, in the example BB actually gave, the improperly informed people were the teachers who were making assumptions without having the facts straight, or worse, denying the evidence when faced with it. Sort of like someone saying they don't agree with a gay man's "lifestyle choice" on the misinformed or denial-based assumption that sexual orientation was that mans conscious decision.


 

feedback