Oso planning to go pro
Did you even read this?? Some of the "hateful" tweets you cite:— "legitimately disappointed in Tony Dungy"— "congratulations @TonyDungy for being on what will turn out to be the WRONG side of history. too bad."— "I had respect for Dungy. No longer. RT @Russ_Steinberg: Tony Dungy is a distraction"— "Disappointed in @TonyDungy. His book Quiet Strength was so inspirational for me and is my favorite book. Shocked by his stance on Sam. #NFL"— "So Tony Dungy wouldn't have taken Michael Sam b/c "things would happen"? Or b/c Dungy is very religious & Sam is gay?? #justsayit"— "Tony Dungy LOVES being a mentor to young players. Unless you're gay. That's too much of a headache"The rest are just adding the F word in mostly. It's Twitter, what'd you expect? Also, I don't have to be tolerant of bigoted people that try to legitimize discrimination. Sorry.
Some people are atheists and all of it is BS. Some are Christians, Muslims, Jewish, etc, believe in something else. But, ya know, whatever works for YOU.That's the point. He has HIS views, for which the tolerance lobby says he essentially isn't allowed to have or will label him in their views as intolerant. His religious views on the subject don't count (ironically). It's always amazing to me that in this country the tolerance lobby doesn't seem to include religous views in their attributes of what can and cannot be considered in their equation.Whatever works for you. By the way, if the last 4 days doesn't show what a total distraction all of this can become, I don't know what else can. Dungy was certainly right on that and in his football opinion, a 7th rounder isn't worth the distraction to getting his team ready and he wouldn't draft him. I appreciate the man's honesty.
Oh, I read it just fine....sorry, but seems to me you didn't scroll down far enough on the link. Try again and get back to me.
I don't disagree on the media distraction, but when you stood up and said you'd take people like Vick but not Sam...your hypocrisy clearly shows and your opinion becomes void.And no, I mean the idea that the Bible actually advocates for the discrimination of gay people in society is a lie and also proves a complete disregard for reading skills, translation nuances, and historical context.
Actually, it is the ultimate exposure of hypocrisy because many of the so called "tolerant" feel they can unleash their "tolerance" without repercussions which they don't always do. It's terrific in that sense. The anonymity allows them to be the ULTIMATE hypocrites. Nothing exposes the tolerant more than their own intolerant remarks. It happens like clockwork every time and the irony is delicious.
Oooooh, so a few guys said he should go F himself. This is game-changing. Look, I read it. It's cute and all that you think this is important or proves something you believe in. But it's Twitter. Type in the name of any minor celebrity and you can see just as much angry behavior. This proves absolutely nothing.
It was just one example. There are examples in organizations, politicians, advocates, media members, etc....I can provide endless examples all day long if needed. That was just low hanging fruit, nothing more.In my view (shared by many others), often the most intolerant people out there are those that preach how tolerant they are. They preach how open they are to other views and viewpoints, and then they are shocked to find out that other people have other views and viewpoints.
On the bible, well one can find Bible components to support or deny just about any argument in my opinion. I was talking about what marriage has been throughout this world throughout history, despite religions, societies, etc. Many people believe in that definition, but despite having those beliefs they are not allowed to have them without being labeled intolerant even if they are grounded in religious beliefs (they believe that to be the case, you may not). For some reason religious views are immediately dismissed and don't fall under the auspices of tolerance. Ironically.
He made his comments in context of the Oprah Winfrey Network reality show, which is a far bigger distraction than the Vick stuff. Context is key. Also, fair or not, Sam is a 7th rounder and not that great, Michael Vick was a great player. That's life in the city, the ultra talented get away with more than those that aren't. Reminds me of a situation on campus a few years ago about some basketball players and some coeds....guys that weren't very good no longer on the team, guys that were considered much better.....On the bible, well one can find Bible components to support or deny just about any argument in my opinion. I was talking about what marriage has been throughout this world throughout history, despite religions, societies, etc. Many people believe in that definition, but despite having those beliefs they are not allowed to have them without being labeled intolerant even if they are grounded in religious beliefs (they believe that to be the case, you may not). For some reason religious views are immediately dismissed and don't fall under the auspices of tolerance. Ironically.
I agree that he's a better human being than Donald Sterling, but in his world Michael Sam is no different from Ray Rice or Michael Vick. All three are guilty of abominations against God. If Rice and Vick repent their sins, God forgives them and Tony has no problem with the "distractions" that surround them. If Michael Sam were to "repent" I'm certain he'd feel the same way - but without repenting, the "distraction" will remain too much to deal with.
Oh boy. Yeah, let's get effin sanctimonious.The bible says homosexuality is an abomination against God and says violators should be stoned to death. Yep. Can't argue with that.The bible also says kids who argue with their parents and women who are not virgins on their wedding nights should be stoned to death, too.I'm guessing Jesus would not advocate any of those punishments, but you go right ahead and use your book of fairy tales to make any case you want.
Hey everyone, look! A moron.
Actually, "traditional" marriage for thousands of years meant polygamy. Religions don't own the concept of marriage.
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?
Also, I don't have to be tolerant of bigoted people that try to legitimize discrimination. Sorry.
Also says eating shellfish is an abomination. Too bad literalists don't understand historical context and that the term "abomination" isn't even a correct english translation and meant more something more along the lines of "you can't be part of this religion if you do this thing" not all that different than not eating meat on Fridays....well, unless you forget!
Do you really think Jeff Fisher would come out and say Sam is a distraction? Jeff Fisher was told how to handle this by the NFL media relations folks. This is text book PR 101 being handled exactly as it should by the Rams and the NFL. Fisher talking about what a distraction Sam is would be feeding red meat to a lion (the media). Again. I am glad Sam was drafted and will get his shot. I hope he has a good long NFL career.
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 ) 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.
So Jeff Fisher is lying. Got it.
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.
Easy, 82. That's not MY take on the subject. It's Tony Dungy's. I think his view is whacky, but if that's what he believes he should at least own it rather than playing the "distraction" card. THEN we can have an honest discussion at least.