MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MU82 on September 20, 2017, 03:58:09 PM
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-wheaton-college-football-hazing-met-20170918-story.html
Disgusting.
I hope these fine community leaders will receive the same punishment as a poor black man convicted of taking part in a gang rape ... but I strongly doubt it. Their rich mommies and daddies will be able to afford the best lawyers, and there will be puddles of crocodile tears in the courtroom.
College officials were so "deeply troubled" (their words, per a school statement) that they gave the criminals 50 whole hours of community service! Oh, and each had to write an "eight-page essay reflecting on their behavior." Talk about cruel and inhuman punishment!! Not only were they allowed to stay in school, they got to keep playing football there.
Praise God!
The freshman told investigators that he was placed in the back seat of a teammate's vehicle and held down by at least two players while others piled into the vehicle. After the vehicle began moving, the players played Middle Eastern music and made offensive comments about Muslims, according to the victim's account.
At one point, the players suggested to the freshman that he had been kidnapped by Muslims who wanted to fornicate with goats, the teen told investigators. They patted his foot and suggested he would be their "goat" for the evening, the records said.
As an aside, Americans are far more likely to be terrorized like this by their peers on college campuses than they are to be terrorized by Muslim terrorists.
And here's a serious question for the lawyers out there:
How do some alleged criminals get the luxury of turning themselves in when they feel like it? I notice this most often when it's famous people or politicians. It doesn't seem "regular" people -especially regular people of color - are afforded the same courtesies. The cops knock down their doors and they get their arses hauled off to jail.
-
Well, we know the accused are white. The word "thugs" wasn't used in the article.
So, on the same day that I read about a deaf man being shot by cops for holding a stick, privileged "white trash" get to turn themselves in at "their" convenience.
Here's another fun "prank" by privleged white boys. Fun stuff.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/high-school-boys-make-rape-joke-at-breast-cancer-awareness-football-game_us_59c269fae4b0f22c4a8dfc51
If the cops wanna get their human target practice on a regular basis, how about spraying these low-lifes with some live ammo. The gene pool would be improved.
-
This is a story about an awful, unacceptable incident on a college campus. No need to turn it into a race issue, MU82. If anything, this is more of a "privileged athlete" story.
The students should be expelled. Simple as that. I'd be interested to know what info the school had when they handed out their "punishments." I'd like to believe that an uber-Christian college like Wheaton didn't have the full story if they gave the student such weak penalties. If not, there are going to be quite a few administration job openings in the very near future.
-
Remember when hazing was fun? I have some great hazing stories I know some other non d1 athletes and frat boys have great hazing stories but sometime in the past few years it went from weird bonding to straight up torture
-
What does race or religion have to do with this. If someone were to start a thread that had another race or religion in it, would it be allowed or tolerated?
These guys screwed up, they'll pay the price. Sad that race and religion is brought into this. Identity politics, ruinous for this country.
-
What does race or religion have to do with this. If someone were to start a thread that had another race or religion in it, would it be allowed or tolerated?
These guys screwed up, they'll pay the price. Sad that race and religion is brought into this. Identity politics, ruinous for this country.
Says the Christian white male who lies about his identity.
-
Says the Christian white male who lies about his identity.
Perfect.
-
This is a story about an awful, unacceptable incident on a college campus. No need to turn it into a race issue, MU82. If anything, this is more of a "privileged athlete" story.
The students should be expelled. Simple as that. I'd be interested to know what info the school had when they handed out their "punishments." I'd like to believe that an uber-Christian college like Wheaton didn't have the full story if they gave the student such weak penalties. If not, there are going to be quite a few administration job openings in the very near future.
MM, as Dusty Baker once told me during a long, very serious conversation (yes, that's right, I dropped Dusty's name, so shoot me): "Everything is about race."
See, white people don't see things that way. But I promise you that black people, especially those who have been arrested only for being black (or know somebody who has been), look at this story and the first thing they say is: "Look how those white boys got treated. They raped - RAPED HIM! - and they had to write an essay. I'm sure I'd be treated the same way."
As for an uber-Christian college not having the full story, perhaps ... but uber-Catholic parishes had many full stories and yet they kept letting priests molest little boys.
Sorry I'm so cynical about these kinds of stories, but it happens too damn often. And then you have the chicos of the world pretending it's something else.
-
MM, as Dusty Baker once told me during a long, very serious conversation (yes, that's right, I dropped Dusty's name, so shoot me): "Everything is about race."
See, white people don't see things that way. But I promise you that black people, especially those who have been arrested only for being black (or know somebody who has been), look at this story and the first thing they say is: "Look how those white boys got treated. They raped - RAPED HIM! - and they had to write an essay. I'm sure I'd be treated the same way."
1) It's not a good idea to surmise what another person would think in a given situation let alone what an entire race would think, especially if you're not of that race.
2) Were those privileged white kids who had their actions swept under the rug at Baylor?
-
2) Were those privileged white kids who had their actions swept under the rug at Baylor?
No. But they were providing direct benefit to privileged white men
-
One really needs to understand Wheaton College to have a real grasp on what factors are at play here.
I think race and privilege have far less to do with this story than the intense desire of an insular, hyperconservative community to protect its image.
-
One really needs to understand Wheaton College to have a real grasp on what factors are at play here.
I think race and privilege have far less to do with this story than the intense desire of an insular, hyperconservative community to protect its image.
I agree with this. (I know multiple Wheaton alumni.) But I do think privilege fueled by wealth allows it to be insular in that respect.
-
One really needs to understand Wheaton College to have a real grasp on what factors are at play here.
I think race and privilege have far less to do with this story than the intense desire of an insular, hyperconservative community to protect its image.
I can't imagine that black boys who committed such a violent crime would be allowed to just drop by the police station at their convenience. I don't think the community would have tried to protect its image.
That is where this becomes about race. Black boys would never have gotten of with an eight page essay and a few days of community service as a punishment. This is a christian college that has winked at white thugs committing a violent assault. Black boys would never have been allowed to continue playing football even as their victim underwent numerous surgeries.
From an article in the Tribune: "Wheaton is an elite evangelical college located in a suburban enclave of Chicago. Its students are held to specific moral standards, signing a statement that they will not drink or smoke or engage in sex outside marriage."
Well their moral standards are much too low for a person like me who would never set foot on that campus.
-
I think race and privilege have far less to do with this story than the intense desire of an insular, hyperconservative community to protect its image.
Actually, protecting their image would be if they had the balls to stand up for what they claim to be.
Instead they have reinforced their image as hypocritical liars.
-
This just in: Bad thing happened, people to politicize it at 11:00.
-
I can't imagine that black boys who committed such a violent crime would be allowed to just drop by the police station at their convenience. I don't think the community would have tried to protect its image.
I think one only need look at the Baylor football program over the past decade, or any number of similar situations (Jameis Winston, Prince Shembo, etc.) to recognize that if you're an athlete you will receive special protections, regardless of your skin color. Allowing a suspect to turn him/herself in under these circumstances is not uncommon.
Honestly, I tend to agree without more often than not when we discuss matters of race around here, but in this particular case, there's nothing that indicates that these players would have been treated any differently by Wheaton College or DuPage County if they were black. The college didn't play this down because the kids are white. The college played it down because it didn't want any negative publicity about the school or its highly successful football program.
And FWIW ... repeatedly referring to male black college students as "black boys" is a bit, er, problematic.
-
I think one only need look at the Baylor football program over the past decade, or any number of similar situations (Jameis Winston, Prince Shembo, etc.) to recognize that if you're an athlete you will receive special protections, regardless of your skin color. Allowing a suspect to turn him/herself in under these circumstances is not uncommon.
Honestly, I tend to agree without more often than not when we discuss matters of race around here, but in this particular case, there's nothing that indicates that these players would have been treated any differently by Wheaton College or DuPage County if they were black. The college didn't play this down because the kids are white. The college played it down because it didn't want any negative publicity about the school or its highly successful football program.
And FWIW ... repeatedly referring to male black college students as "black boys" is a bit, er, problematic.
You may be right, Pakuni.
BTW, I only used "black boys" here because I used "white boys" in my posts as well. I do understand the implications if it were used in a stand-alone situation.
-
I think one only need look at the Baylor football program over the past decade, or any number of similar situations (Jameis Winston, Prince Shembo, etc.) to recognize that if you're an athlete you will receive special protections, regardless of your skin color. Allowing a suspect to turn him/herself in under these circumstances is not uncommon.
Honestly, I tend to agree without more often than not when we discuss matters of race around here, but in this particular case, there's nothing that indicates that these players would have been treated any differently by Wheaton College or DuPage County if they were black. The college didn't play this down because the kids are white. The college played it down because it didn't want any negative publicity about the school or its highly successful football program.
And FWIW ... repeatedly referring to male black college students as "black boys" is a bit, er, problematic.
I'm pretty sure this incident (and the handling of it) is not "about race." But I do believe there is a racial aspect to it, at least from those on the outside looking in.
You're right about the Baylor stuff, Jameis, etc. And I would contend that far too many whities see those incidents and the first thing they think of is out-of-control black athletes - especially if white girls are involved with them.
Meanwhile, here you have privileged white kids getting virtually no punishment at all for raping somebody. It doesn't seem it was alleged rape, either, but actual rape. It seems the criminals acknowledged it and accepted the lame-arse "punishment."
You've got tennis player James Blake being hauled off to jail just for being black ... and then you've got these white, "moral" Christians having to write essays after raping somebody.
I'm sorry, but I see the racial aspect of it.
I also see the horrific hypocrisy by the school officials. Sex is forbidden. But if you sodomize a peer, tsk tsk, write an essay. Stand up for unborn fetuses, but don't stand up for your living, breathing student. Etc, etc.
-
MM, as Dusty Baker once told me during a long, very serious conversation
Big Dusty fan- what were the circumstances? Was Daren there?
-
Big Dusty fan- what were the circumstances? Was Daren there?
No.
I was a sportswriter, he was a manager.
-
You've got tennis player James Blake being hauled off to jail just for being black ... and then you've got these white, "moral" Christians having to write essays after raping somebody.
Just to clarify...James Blake was not "hauled off to jail just for being black." He was forcefully handcuffed because a witness wrongly identified him as a person of interest in a credit card scam who was staying in the same hotel.
Did the cop use excessive force? Probably, and that's why he lost his gun and badge. Did the cop use excessive force simply because Blake is a minority or did he use force because he had been told that the suspect was armed? Perhaps the cop is racist, perhaps he was simply doing his job, perhaps it's somewhere in between.
-
Just to clarify...James Blake was not "hauled off to jail just for being black." He was forcefully handcuffed because a witness wrongly identified him as a person of interest in a credit card scam who was staying in the same hotel.
Did the cop use excessive force? Probably, and that's why he lost his gun and badge. Did the cop use excessive force simply because Blake is a minority or did he use force because he had been told that the suspect was armed? Perhaps the cop is racist, perhaps he was simply doing his job, perhaps it's somewhere in between.
Perhaps we live in a culture that teaches us that the black man is inherently more dangerous than others, and sometimes such instances of excessive and unnecessary force are a result of that bias.
-
I'm pretty sure this incident (and the handling of it) is not "about race." But I do believe there is a racial aspect to it, at least from those on the outside looking in.
You're right about the Baylor stuff, Jameis, etc. And I would contend that far too many whities see those incidents and the first thing they think of is out-of-control black athletes - especially if white girls are involved with them.
Meanwhile, here you have privileged white kids getting virtually no punishment at all for raping somebody. It doesn't seem it was alleged rape, either, but actual rape. It seems the criminals acknowledged it and accepted the lame-arse "punishment."
You've got tennis player James Blake being hauled off to jail just for being black ... and then you've got these white, "moral" Christians having to write essays after raping somebody.
I'm sorry, but I see the racial aspect of it.
I also see the horrific hypocrisy by the school officials. Sex is forbidden. But if you sodomize a peer, tsk tsk, write an essay. Stand up for unborn fetuses, but don't stand up for your living, breathing student. Etc, etc.
This is one doozy of a thread, but I have to agree with Pakuni here... there's no reason to inject race or class into the discussion unless you're looking for an excuse to push an agenda. Hell, you can inject race into anything you want these days, so why cherry pick?
Now the hypocrisy thing... granted, you have a point there, a nice juicy infallible one at that. But what does knocking people off their horses supposed to actually accomplish here? Has society really devolved to the point where helping people means pointing fingers and denigrating others when they f*ck up?
By playing the race card here, you're marginalizing and distracting attention from the real issue. Hazing is a real problem in our society that is blind to the color of race; at most, hazing is just an organized form of bullying, and like bullying, the consequences of hazing not only runs the entire spectrum from hurt feelings to death but usually don't manifest until it's too late.
-
Here's an incident that happened at a football game last week involving one of the top high schools in NC, a 3200-student public school in an affluent neighborhood. It involves students acting out - spitting at band members, drinking, swearing, using racial epithets, etc.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/education/article174904541.html
Given what we know so far, it looks to me like the school handled it pretty well. But some people - especially some black people - think the perpetrators got a break because they are at a rich, white school.
You have to read well down into the article to see the reaction of a teacher from a school with primarily black kids:
Kevin Poirier, a teacher at the majority black, high-poverty West Charlotte High noted that an Ardrey Kell parent was quoted in the WSOC report as saying the students deserve consequences for “their silly actions,” while his students would have been called “thugs.”
“If my students at West Charlotte did this, guess what ... the news story wouldn’t look like this,” Poirier wrote. “This is what White Privilege looks like.”
-
I'm just gonna guess......
In before the lock.
-
One really needs to understand Wheaton College to have a real grasp on what factors are at play here.
I think race and privilege have far less to do with this story than the intense desire of an insular, hyperconservative community to protect its image.
Gee, where have we seen that one before?
Perhaps when a campus cop calls the head basketball coach rather than the local constables, as state law requires.
Or perhaps when a bishop transfers a misbehaving priest all over a diocese rather than deal with the misbehavior.
Or perhaps yet when a President becomes an unindicted co-conspirator rather than acknowledge his minions were breaking the law....
It goes on and on...
-
We know what athletes the orange creep will never criticize -the "very fine people" who committed this violent assault.
-
I'm just gonna guess......
In before the lock.
This ^^^^^^
Have at it Wocky.
-
I'm just gonna guess......
In before the lock.
Why? We can't have a grown-up discussion about race, white privilege, athletes gone wild, etc.?
I know that I didn't say anything that merited this thread be locked.
-
Why? We can't have a grown-up discussion about race, white privilege, athletes gone wild, etc.?
I know that I didn't say anything that merited this thread be locked.
Wasn't pointed at you.
-
Wasn't pointed at you.
...this time :o
-
Only if we humans could treat each other the way we treat our dogs. We don't care what color our dogs are and our dogs don't care what color we are. I think we can learn a lesson from our canine friends.
-
...this time :o
Not what I meant Wocket.
-
Only if we humans could treat each other the way we treat our dogs. We don't care what color our dogs are and our dogs don't care what color we are. I think we can learn a lesson from our canine friends.
Not a bad metaphor. But my dog barks at people of color and people who are overweight. So even our canine friends can be bigots ;D
-
Not a bad metaphor. But my dog barks at people of color and people who are overweight. So even our canine friends can be bigots ;D
And some dogs try to kill other dogs. :-\
-
Why? We can't have a grown-up discussion about race, white privilege, athletes gone wild, etc.?
I know that I didn't say anything that merited this thread be locked.
For starters, was your thread title grown-up? Or was it meant to be sarcastic, cause a stir? Was it meant to start a grow-up conversation?
-
Why? We can't have a grown-up discussion about race, white privilege, athletes gone wild, etc.?
I know that I didn't say anything that merited this thread be locked.
Grown-up = mocking religion in your original post? Get real. This thread started with your hateful, disturbing words. Sad!
-
Grown-up = mocking religion in your original post? Get real. This thread started with your hateful, disturbing words. Sad!
We have a bingo
-
Congrats, JB. You got a "bingo" from chicos.
I'm sure that those fine, upstanding, young, white Christian men stood for the national anthem before games, at least.
-
Grown-up = mocking religion in your original post? Get real. This thread started with your hateful, disturbing words. Sad!
Can you imagine if he started a thread about a fine, upstanding, young, black Muslim man regarding today's church shooting in Tennessee? It would be universally condemned. But this thread title is somehow ok? You are exactly right what the intent was and it was sad. Nothing grown up about it. I'd love to have grown up conversations here. Is it possible?
-
Can you imagine if he started a thread about a fine, upstanding, young, black Muslim man regarding today's church shooting in Tennessee? It would be universally condemned. But this thread title is somehow ok? You are exactly right what the intent was and it was sad. Nothing grown up about it. I'd love to have grown up conversations here. Is it possible?
With you involved?
Nope.
-
Can you imagine if he started a thread about a fine, upstanding, young, black Muslim man regarding today's church shooting in Tennessee? It would be universally condemned. But this thread title is somehow ok? You are exactly right what the intent was and it was sad. Nothing grown up about it. I'd love to have grown up conversations here. Is it possible?
(http://culturalorganizing.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/IISC_EqualityEquity.jpg)
-
With you involved?
Nope.
i don't think you could have that conversation with yourself without chit hitting the fan. you'd have to give yourself the ban hammer or a timeout at least. i'd vote for the former
-
Can you imagine if he started a thread about a fine, upstanding, young, black Muslim man regarding today's church shooting in Tennessee? It would be universally condemned. But this thread title is somehow ok? You are exactly right what the intent was and it was sad. Nothing grown up about it. I'd love to have grown up conversations here. Is it possible?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9ciqzjPv5Ls/UsKhayF2HMI/AAAAAAAAGOM/giFwUa196o8/s1600/Debunking+Atheists+IronyMeter.gif)
-
Can you imagine if he started a thread about a fine, upstanding, young, black Muslim man regarding today's church shooting in Tennessee? It would be universally condemned. But this thread title is somehow ok? You are exactly right what the intent was and it was sad. Nothing grown up about it. I'd love to have grown up conversations here. Is it possible?
First, I wouldn't have started a post about him because it had nothing to do with sports.
Second, according to those who knew the shooter well, they said he wasn't into religion (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-killed-eight-shot-church-shooting-tennessee-n804321), so I don't know why you would bring religion into it - except for a possible anti-Muslim bias on your part.
Third, I admit my title was intended to be controversial and thought-provoking. What is happening in society today (IMHO) is that many white Christian men have created a narrative in which they are the oppressed - hell, you feed that narrative several times a day here. Many Christian organizations hold themselves up as righteous and morally superior. And so, when white Christian men commit rape and then their Christian organization "punishes" them by making them write essays, hoping it all goes away, it's hypocrisy of the highest order in my view.
Others are allowed to disagree with what I just said. That's 'Merica!
Have a nice day.
-
Can you imagine if he started a thread about a fine, upstanding, young, black Muslim man regarding today's church shooting in Tennessee? It would be universally condemned. But this thread title is somehow ok? You are exactly right what the intent was and it was sad. Nothing grown up about it. I'd love to have grown up conversations here. Is it possible?
Well first, people would have pointed out that this has nothing to do with sports, or MU, so has no business on this board.
Then, people would likely point out that the man's religion is largely unknown, but up to at least 1-year ago, he was attending the Christian church that he ended up shooting people at. So he was at least Christian in the past. So your title would make no sense whatsoever.
Next, they would have pointed out that the man was immediately arrested and charged with murder, instead of being allowed to remain in school and compete in football, after writing an essay.
Finally, if you didn't get that the title by MU82 was written in jest/satire of the mission of the University these disgusting individuals attended, then I'm sorry, but a little thought before attacking is always helpful.
Nice job of deflecting, and trying to bring up a topic that has no business here.
-
I'd love to have grown up conversations here. Is it possible?
Not from the guy who was banned from here because he's incapable of grown-up conversations. How's that ban going by the way?
-
Grown-up = mocking religion in your original post? Get real. This thread started with your hateful, disturbing words. Sad!
There are reasons MU82 and I mock religion - even though he is an atheist and I consider myself christian.
Evangelicals sold their souls to a political party in the 80's. Catholic leaders openly allowed their leaders to rape children and when they finally got caught, tried to lie and cover it up - often blaming the children. Pastor Robert Jeffress, the orange pig's pastor, played the WWJD card on "Fox and Friends" today. He had the blaspheming gall to suggest to NFL players that Jesus tells them they "owe" the government and Trump "our respect and our prayers." He also said Friday that God is not "an open-borders kind of guy".
These are great reasons to knock religion. I don't think that 82 or I have even mocked any person who is truly living a christian life.
-
There are reasons MU82 and I mock religion - even though he is an atheist and I consider myself christian.
Evangelicals sold their souls to a political party in the 80's. Catholic leaders openly allowed their leaders to rape children and when they finally got caught, tried to lie and cover it up - often blaming the children. Pastor Robert Jeffress, the orange pig's pastor, played the WWJD card on "Fox and Friends" today. He had the blaspheming gall to suggest to NFL players that Jesus tells them they "owe" the government and Trump "our respect and our prayers." He also said Friday that God is not "an open-borders kind of guy".
These are great reasons to knock religion. I don't think that 82 or I have even mocked any person who is truly living a christian life.
Indeed, brand, some of the most "Christian" folks I know are atheists!
-
When will Mods do the right thing?
-
Indeed, brand, some of the most "Christian" folks I know are atheists!
Hooray for atheists! F#ck Christians! Unity!!!
-
Hooray for atheists! F#ck Christians! Unity!!!
I don't think that's what 82 said at all. l think his point is that our sh*t stinks just as much as anybody else's be they atheist, agnostic, catholic, protestant, muslim, jew, or worshipers of the flying spaghetti monster. What we say believe doesn't matter....its the actions that show what believe that matter. In our country today, muslim and atheist are often used with a negative connotation. Muslims are associated with terrorists and atheists are considered amoral. I mean can you ever imagine a known muslim or an open atheist successfully running for president in today's climate? They are unfairly associated with minority groups who have committed terrorist and amoral actions. But when white christian boys commit a heinous act, people are told to "not make it about race or religion." If a person who was raised Muslim committed these same actions, people would be calling them terrorists and using it as fuel for a travel ban or building a wall.
The reality is, anyone who commits an act like these men are accused of cannot honestly call themselves a Christian. Just as anyone who commits an act of terrorism cannot honestly call themselves a Muslim.
-
I don't think that's what 82 said at all. l think his point is that our sh*t stinks just as much as anybody else's be they atheist, agnostic, catholic, protestant, muslim, jew, or worshipers of the flying spaghetti monster. What we say believe doesn't matter....its the actions that show what believe that matter. In our country today, muslim and atheist are often used with a negative connotation. Muslims are associated with terrorists and atheists are considered amoral. I mean can you ever imagine a known muslim or an open atheist successfully running for president in today's climate? They are unfairly associated with minority groups who have committed terrorist and amoral actions. But when white christian boys commit a heinous act, people are told to "not make it about race or religion." If a person who was raised Muslim committed these same actions, people would be calling them terrorists and using it as fuel for a travel ban or building a wall.
The reality is, anyone who commits an act like these men are accused of cannot honestly call themselves a Christian. Just as anyone who commits an act of terrorism cannot honestly call themselves a Muslim.
Thank you for getting it and explaining it beautifully, TAMU.
We have some people really itchin' for a fight here. I have no idea how Lenny came up with what he did based on what I said.
-
Thank you for getting it and explaining it beautifully, TAMU.
We have some people really itchin' for a fight here. I have no idea how Lenny came up with what he did based on what I said.
To many Christians, atheism is basically a middle finger to them (and vice versa) Let me summarize the general sentiment:
"You tell me I'm wrong [because I believe in something you say can't exist] yet you provide no proof to back up your position?"
Now flip this over, and you have atheism's primary complaint against the faithful. Either way, the simple mention of faith or atheism to the other in an adverse matter presumes insult.
Essentially, atheism and faith are a "he-said-she-said".... neither can prove themselves right or the other wrong. And while some of the faithful do try to push their religion on anyone they can (some branches of religion more than others), most are very private with their religion and don't evangelize; on the other hand, it would seem that just as many atheists are not ones to miss an opportunity to throw shade at the faithful when it arises either. So both stake claim to moral superiority despite standing on a cheese moon.
That being said,
These are great reasons to knock religion. I don't think that 82 or I have even mocked any person who is truly living a christian life.
I will concede that the OP was not mocking religion in general but simply pointing out hypocrisy. Which, ok, fine, I get that. But hypocrisy exists everywhere... if you're only going to point it out when it fits a certain mold, you have to expect that people are going to think you're pushing an agenda. And with that being the case, you have to expect that some will challenge or retaliate. But to act baffled when people react accordingly or that they "didn't get the point," there's a term for that, but I don't want to offend the lawyers on the board.
IMO - Atheism and faith exist on the same intellectual plane. If anyone gets to play high-and-mighty, it's the agnostics, because whether you prove them right or wrong, it always turns out that they were right.
So all y'all can take your Jesus, or your not-Jesus, and go straight to hell.... if it exists, which I'm not saying it does. But if it does, well... you know.... go straight there and stuff. Or not. Whatever. I don't care.
-
Well first, people would have pointed out that this has nothing to do with sports, or MU, so has no business on this board.
Then, people would likely point out that the man's religion is largely unknown, but up to at least 1-year ago, he was attending the Christian church that he ended up shooting people at. So he was at least Christian in the past. So your title would make no sense whatsoever.
Next, they would have pointed out that the man was immediately arrested and charged with murder, instead of being allowed to remain in school and compete in football, after writing an essay.
Finally, if you didn't get that the title by MU82 was written in jest/satire of the mission of the University these disgusting individuals attended, then I'm sorry, but a little thought before attacking is always helpful.
Nice job of deflecting, and trying to bring up a topic that has no business here.
Many topics here have nothing to do with sports. Satire / jest gives one a free pass to post this stuff? Nice try defending. It was inappropriate, and you know it. The topic header was meant to drive an agenda and stir the pot, nothing more.
-
Many topics here have nothing to do with sports. Satire / jest gives one a free pass to post this stuff? Nice try defending. It was inappropriate, and you know it. The topic header was meant to drive an agenda and stir the pot, nothing more.
Gosh you're right! There used to be this guy Chicos that did this all of the time. What ever happened to him?
-
Gosh you're right! There used to be this guy Chicos that did this all of the time. What ever happened to him?
Agreed. The OP was Chiconian and TAMU's defense of it was vintage rocket/Boo Boo.
Self awareness is in short supply on both sides.
-
Agreed. The OP was Chiconian and TAMU's defense of it was vintage rocket/Boo Boo.
Self awareness is in short supply on both sides.
Instead of hurling insults would you like to explain what you took issue with in my post? I think it was pretty fair and balanced.
-
Instead of hurling insults would you like to explain what you took issue with in my post? I think it was pretty fair and balanced.
A bunch of moronic bubba football players viciously hazed one of their own - somehow 82 turns a disgusting anecdote into a diatribe about race, religion and privilege, even managing to do little Chiconian name dropping (he's had long conversations with Dusty Baker, doncha know - and no greater authority than the Dustman himself has assured Mike that in 'Merica it's ALWAYS about race) to drive home a point that didn't have much to do with the story.
Somehow you construed Mike's post as a simple declaration that everybody's sh#t stinks, black, white, christian and muslim. Nobody that I know has ever denied this but I don't know what it had to do with Mike's intentionally incendiary post. This reminded me of when rocket would miss the real point of a Chico diatribe but would reconfigure it (in a kinder, gentler way) to be able to agree with something he thought maybe Chico meant. For this, Mike nicknamed him Boo Boo.
IMHO the OP was misleading and overtly political (like many of Chico's posts that 82 would criticize). IMHO your defense of 82's post was reminiscent of the type that rocket wrote in defense of Chico that 82 would mercilessly mock (Boo Boo).
I like Mike and I like you. I don't mean to be "hurling insults". But dueling anecdotes of hypocrisy, outrage, etc. (identity politics period) from right or left has gotten out of hand on Scoop.
-
To many Christians, atheism is basically a middle finger to them (and vice versa) Let me summarize the general sentiment:
"You tell me I'm wrong [because I believe in something you say can't exist] yet you provide no proof to back up your position?"
Now flip this over, and you have atheism's primary complaint against the faithful. Either way, the simple mention of faith or atheism to the other in an adverse matter presumes insult.
Essentially, atheism and faith are a "he-said-she-said".... neither can prove themselves right or the other wrong. And while some of the faithful do try to push their religion on anyone they can (some branches of religion more than others), most are very private with their religion and don't evangelize; on the other hand, it would seem that just as many atheists are not ones to miss an opportunity to throw shade at the faithful when it arises either. So both stake claim to moral superiority despite standing on a cheese moon.
That being said,
I will concede that the OP was not mocking religion in general but simply pointing out hypocrisy. Which, ok, fine, I get that. But hypocrisy exists everywhere... if you're only going to point it out when it fits a certain mold, you have to expect that people are going to think you're pushing an agenda. And with that being the case, you have to expect that some will challenge or retaliate. But to act baffled when people react accordingly or that they "didn't get the point," there's a term for that, but I don't want to offend the lawyers on the board.
IMO - Atheism and faith exist on the same intellectual plane. If anyone gets to play high-and-mighty, it's the agnostics, because whether you prove them right or wrong, it always turns out that they were right.
So all y'all can take your Jesus, or your not-Jesus, and go straight to hell.... if it exists, which I'm not saying it does. But if it does, well... you know.... go straight there and stuff. Or not. Whatever. I don't care.
Love the post, Benny. Sometimes :-[ you are spot on.
My wife is Buddhist and I always love watching the reactions of "christians" after she is asked about religion.
-
Love the post, Benny. Sometimes :-[ you are spot on.
My wife is Buddhist and I always love watching the reactions of "christians" after she is asked about religion.
You should see the reactions I get when I tell people I'm a practicing agnostic Catholic; I swear I can hear the other people's brain cells rupturing when I tell them that.
-
You should see the reactions I get when I tell people I'm a practicing agnostic Catholic; I swear I can hear the other people's brain cells rupturing when I tell them that.
Intellectual honesty (short of a lightening bolt, near death experience, etc.) demands agnosticism. Beyond that, we decide what we want to be.
-
My wife is Buddhist and I always love watching the reactions of "christians" after she is asked about religion.
You should see the reactions I get when I tell people I'm a practicing agnostic Catholic; I swear I can hear the other people's brain cells rupturing when I tell them that.
Do you often find yourselves being asked your religion? I couldn't tell you the last time I've had something like that come up in conversation. Then again, my religion is pretty standard and not something out of the ordinary that I'd attempt to work into conversation to get a reaction.
-
Do you often find yourselves being asked your religion? I couldn't tell you the last time I've had something like that come up in conversation. Then again, my religion is pretty standard and not something out of the ordinary that I'd attempt to work into conversation to get a reaction.
This is all a matter of your POV - i frequently get asked about my religion because i don't take part in some ubiquitous Christian thing. When i sit down for "God bless America" at a Royals game, when i excuse myself from the room when the Christian organization that supports one of the non profit boards i'm on starts a meeting with a prayer, when people pry into why my kids don't go to Kanakuk camp, "i notice on sympathy cards you always say that your thoughts are with someone and never your prayers", etc.
The only time i work atheism into a conversation is when the other person is being a pompous ass, or condescending, about "non standard" beliefs.
-
This is all a matter of your POV - i frequently get asked about my religion because i don't take part in some ubiquitous Christian thing. When i sit down for "God bless America" at a Royals game, when i excuse myself from the room when the Christian organization that supports one of the non profit boards i'm on starts a meeting with a prayer, when people pry into why my kids don't go to Kanakuk camp, "i notice on sympathy cards you always say that your thoughts are with someone and never your prayers", etc.
The only time i work atheism into a conversation is when the other person is being a pompous ass, or condescending, about "non standard" beliefs.
The examples that you gave may not be bringing up religion in a conversation but they all draw attention to yourself and your "non-standard beliefs." I don't mean to imply that you're doing something wrong. Do what you feel the need to do. Just an observation.
Also, people really question your signing of sympathy cards?! Bizarre.
-
The examples that you gave may not be bringing up religion in a conversation but they all draw attention to yourself and your "non-standard beliefs." I don't mean to imply that you're doing something wrong. Do what you feel the need to do. Just an observation.
Also, people really question your signing of sympathy cards?! Bizarre.
The card thing happened once and it was bizarre. One of my good friends at work at the time busted out laughing saying "i'm late for a meeting with my boss but i'm sticking around for this".
in all the scenarios that i used it is the Christian that is bringing up religion in a non religious setting not me. I don't leave the room when a function at my kids school starts with a prayer because its an Episcopal school - but i'm not the one bringing attention to myself by not participating in a prayer (ish) activity outside of a religious environment, the person starting the prayer is bringing the attention by assuming everyone holds the same beliefs they do.
I should've added that 90% of the time people are totally cool with me excusing myself
-
Do you often find yourselves being asked your religion? I couldn't tell you the last time I've had something like that come up in conversation. Then again, my religion is pretty standard and not something out of the ordinary that I'd attempt to work into conversation to get a reaction.
No - doesn't happen often. Hardly ever until the last year or so.
-
Do you often find yourselves being asked your religion? I couldn't tell you the last time I've had something like that come up in conversation. Then again, my religion is pretty standard and not something out of the ordinary that I'd attempt to work into conversation to get a reaction.
Short answer is not often, but likely more than your average person... I have kids in Catholic school and let's just say that the nun who oversees the 2nd grade sacraments is very, very, very old school. So most of my religion discussions have been among the kids' classmates' parents which mostly start up along the lines of "how far do we go along with this pre-Vatican II stuff" or reconciling Catholic teaching that's appropriate for today's world without losing meaning or getting the kids kicked out of school.
Outside that one time I took the shuttle from the hotel in Panama City on spring break, I have never been approached by someone and asked "what do you believe."
-
A bunch of moronic bubba football players viciously hazed one of their own - somehow 82 turns a disgusting anecdote into a diatribe about race, religion and privilege, even managing to do little Chiconian name dropping (he's had long conversations with Dusty Baker, doncha know - and no greater authority than the Dustman himself has assured Mike that in 'Merica it's ALWAYS about race) to drive home a point that didn't have much to do with the story.
Somehow you construed Mike's post as a simple declaration that everybody's sh#t stinks, black, white, christian and muslim. Nobody that I know has ever denied this but I don't know what it had to do with Mike's intentionally incendiary post. This reminded me of when rocket would miss the real point of a Chico diatribe but would reconfigure it (in a kinder, gentler way) to be able to agree with something he thought maybe Chico meant. For this, Mike nicknamed him Boo Boo.
IMHO the OP was misleading and overtly political (like many of Chico's posts that 82 would criticize). IMHO your defense of 82's post was reminiscent of the type that rocket wrote in defense of Chico that 82 would mercilessly mock (Boo Boo).
I like Mike and I like you. I don't mean to be "hurling insults". But dueling anecdotes of hypocrisy, outrage, etc. (identity politics period) from right or left has gotten out of hand on Scoop.
is that where that "nickname" came from? i guess it's better than calling someone a racist ?-(
so anytime someone agrees with another, they are a "boo-boo"? is that how you guys think? disagree with someone and go all "alinsky" on them? pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it...pitiful
-
A bunch of moronic bubba football players viciously hazed one of their own - somehow 82 turns a disgusting anecdote into a diatribe about race, religion and privilege, even managing to do little Chiconian name dropping (he's had long conversations with Dusty Baker, doncha know - and no greater authority than the Dustman himself has assured Mike that in 'Merica it's ALWAYS about race) to drive home a point that didn't have much to do with the story.
Somehow you construed Mike's post as a simple declaration that everybody's sh#t stinks, black, white, christian and muslim. Nobody that I know has ever denied this but I don't know what it had to do with Mike's intentionally incendiary post. This reminded me of when rocket would miss the real point of a Chico diatribe but would reconfigure it (in a kinder, gentler way) to be able to agree with something he thought maybe Chico meant. For this, Mike nicknamed him Boo Boo.
IMHO the OP was misleading and overtly political (like many of Chico's posts that 82 would criticize). IMHO your defense of 82's post was reminiscent of the type that rocket wrote in defense of Chico that 82 would mercilessly mock (Boo Boo).
I like Mike and I like you. I don't mean to be "hurling insults". But dueling anecdotes of hypocrisy, outrage, etc. (identity politics period) from right or left has gotten out of hand on Scoop.
So you disagree with the assertion that when a person of color or a muslim commits a crime their race and religion is brought up, but when a white or christian person commits a crime their race and religion is usually ignored and when it is brought up people say "don't make this about race/religion"
-
So you disagree with the assertion that when a person of color or a muslim commits a crime their race and religion is brought up, but when a white or christian person commits a crime their race and religion is usually ignored and when it is brought up people say "don't make this about race/religion"
Brought up by whom? How would you know if never brought up? Liberal media, helped by their social media warriors? Source?
-
So you disagree with the assertion that when a person of color or a muslim commits a crime their race and religion is brought up, but when a white or christian person commits a crime their race and religion is usually ignored and when it is brought up people say "don't make this about race/religion"
When the crime is motivated by religion, I would think it's perfectly fine to talk about religion. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
-
So you disagree with the assertion that when a person of color or a muslim commits a crime their race and religion is brought up, but when a white or christian person commits a crime their race and religion is usually ignored and when it is brought up people say "don't make this about race/religion"
I think only wackos bring up a person's gender, sexual orientation, religion (or lack thereof) or color when they commit a violent crime that has nothing to do with any of the above. Are Christian individuals (or any individuals) who rape somebody hypocrites as well as pigs? Sure, but how is that newsworthy? How is religion (or lack thereof) relevant?
However, when muslims behead innocent women and children for the crime of not being muslims, go on an indiscriminate shooting spree while proclaiming "Allah Akbar", etc., etc., etc., their religion is brought up - because it's their motive for their actions. And I think that's a fair, even obvious, distinction.
-
I think only wackos bring up a person's gender, sexual orientation, religion (or lack thereof) or color when they commit a violent crime that has nothing to do with any of the above. Are Christian individuals (or any individuals) who rape somebody hypocrites as well as pigs? Sure, but how is that newsworthy? How is religion (or lack thereof) relevant?
However, when muslims behead innocent women and children for the crime of not being muslims, go on an indiscriminate shooting spree while proclaiming "Allah Akbar", etc., etc., etc., their religion is brought up - because it's their motive for their actions. And I think that's a fair, even obvious, distinction.
I'm not trying to be insensitive here... but, Lenny's has a point. When someone screams "Allahu akbar", etc as they slit the throats of / drive the vans into / shoot bullets into innocent victims, religion comes into play, hey?
There are mentally ill nutcases out there. There are also religious fanatics that hate you because of your skin color or country of origin. Addressing the issue of them equally isn't anything but idiotic.
-
I think only wackos bring up a person's gender, sexual orientation, religion (or lack thereof) or color when they commit a violent crime that has nothing to do with any of the above. Are Christian individuals (or any individuals) who rape somebody hypocrites as well as pigs? Sure, but how is that newsworthy? How is religion (or lack thereof) relevant?
However, when muslims behead innocent women and children for the crime of not being muslims, go on an indiscriminate shooting spree while proclaiming "Allah Akbar", etc., etc., etc., their religion is brought up - because it's their motive for their actions. And I think that's a fair, even obvious, distinction.
I'm in total agreement with you - call out the motivations for what they are.
In trying to understand those motivations I recently listened to a wellRED podcast (link below) where the guest gave a POV on the Muslim religion that i had not heard before and made me look through a different lens - not defending or justifying anything, just an interesting perspective which essentially is......a) the koran is very much advocates extreme measures, b) unlike the bible, the koran only has one book. the bible has a (much more extreme) old testament and a much newer "more humanitarian" new testament, and c) the koran was written 600 years after the new testament.
That's all paraphrasing and not a justification for atrocity carried out on its behalf, but it does make you think "if Christianity was only 600/1000/2000 years old......what would Christians do to further it?" or "if the koran could incorporate 1000 years of human interaction/evolution overnight, would it evolve into a much kinder religion?"
IMHO the best way to combat islamic extremists is through information availability to expedite that evolution.
http://wellredpodcast.libsyn.com/28-fk-nazis-mona-shaikh-david-smalley (http://wellredpodcast.libsyn.com/28-fk-nazis-mona-shaikh-david-smalley)
-
I think only wackos bring up a person's gender, sexual orientation, religion (or lack thereof) or color when they commit a violent crime that has nothing to do with any of the above. Are Christian individuals (or any individuals) who rape somebody hypocrites as well as pigs? Sure, but how is that newsworthy? How is religion (or lack thereof) relevant?
However, when muslims behead innocent women and children for the crime of not being muslims, go on an indiscriminate shooting spree while proclaiming "Allah Akbar", etc., etc., etc., their religion is brought up - because it's their motive for their actions. And I think that's a fair, even obvious, distinction.
I agree that people who bring up a person's gender, sexual orientation, religion (or lack thereof) or color when a crime is committed are misguided (I assume that's what you mean by wackos). Unfortunately, there are a lot of wackos in the world. Because every time I hear about a crime involving a person of color I see it featured prominently and people making arguments about how this is proof we need a border wall or a travel ban. But whenever the person is white or christian, you can't bring race or religion into it.
I agree that when a Muslim kills someone for the crime of not being a muslim it should be mentioned. I would argue that there are times when white people kill people for the crime of being a different race, or men kill or abuse women for the crime of being women. Sometimes it gets brought up but it is often met with "this isn't about race or gender."]
-
Because every time I hear about a crime involving a person of color I see it featured prominently and people making arguments about how this is proof we need a border wall or a travel ban. But whenever the person is white or christian, you can't bring race or religion into it.
Every time a person of color commits a crime his ethnicity is featured prominently and used to promote a border wall or travel ban? That's just patently false.
-
A bunch of moronic bubba football players viciously hazed one of their own - somehow 82 turns a disgusting anecdote into a diatribe about race, religion and privilege, even managing to do little Chiconian name dropping (he's had long conversations with Dusty Baker, doncha know - and no greater authority than the Dustman himself has assured Mike that in 'Merica it's ALWAYS about race) to drive home a point that didn't have much to do with the story.
Somehow you construed Mike's post as a simple declaration that everybody's sh#t stinks, black, white, christian and muslim. Nobody that I know has ever denied this but I don't know what it had to do with Mike's intentionally incendiary post. This reminded me of when rocket would miss the real point of a Chico diatribe but would reconfigure it (in a kinder, gentler way) to be able to agree with something he thought maybe Chico meant. For this, Mike nicknamed him Boo Boo.
IMHO the OP was misleading and overtly political (like many of Chico's posts that 82 would criticize). IMHO your defense of 82's post was reminiscent of the type that rocket wrote in defense of Chico that 82 would mercilessly mock (Boo Boo).
I like Mike and I like you. I don't mean to be "hurling insults". But dueling anecdotes of hypocrisy, outrage, etc. (identity politics period) from right or left has gotten out of hand on Scoop.
Interesting, Lenny. You sure claim to know a lot about what's going on in my head.
Warning: That is a dark and scary place.
You sure know how to hurt a guy comparing him to chicos, though.
I'm kind of the anti-chicos in this context, really. I think everything is (or at least a lot of things are) about race, and he thinks nothing is. Well, that last part isn't actually true. He thinks everybody's out to get whitey.
Anyway, I'm glad you like me, Lenny. You'd have real ripped me a new one if you didn't.
-
I agree that people who bring up a person's gender, sexual orientation, religion (or lack thereof) or color when a crime is committed are misguided (I assume that's what you mean by wackos). Unfortunately, there are a lot of wackos in the world.
Glad you recognize MU82 (and the entire start to this thread) as wacko.
Praise God!
-
Also, people really question your signing of sympathy cards?! Bizarre.
This surprises you?
A certain fair-and-balanced TV network has made an entire platform out of The War On Christmas. And in his speech to Boy Scouts, the most powerful person in America vowed: " ... you'll be saying 'Merry Christmas' again when you go shopping, believe me."
Are we talkin' instant beheadings for saying, "Happy Holidays," or just jail time?
-
Interesting, Lenny. You sure claim to know a lot about what's going on in my head.
Warning: That is a dark and scary place.
You sure know how to hurt a guy comparing him to chicos, though.
I'm kind of the anti-chicos in this context, really. I think everything is (or at least a lot of things are) about race, and he thinks nothing is. Well, that last part isn't actually true. He thinks everybody's out to get whitey.
Anyway, I'm glad you like me, Lenny. You'd have real ripped me a new one if you didn't.
Mike, the parallel I drew between you and Chico is as follows:
You have a somewhat rigid (albeit opposite) world view. You both resort to anecdotal evidence (which IMO isn't worth much) to passionately, combatively and hyperbolically push that world view. For me, that's "angry Mike" who is similar to Chico. I recognize that character because I'm also at times guilty in that regard.
OTOH, you have a wit and sense of humor about yourself and the world around you that I think is engaging. When your "good angels" have the upper hand (which I'd guess would be the vast majority of the time) I'd bet you're a great guy.
-
When your "good angels" have the upper hand (which I'd guess would be the vast majority of the time) I'd bet you're a great guy.
Some define success with money. Others, achievement. Me, it's knowing that when the angels at the table are already holding the upper hand, I'm capable of resisting the urge to go all in. But then again, I'm no stranger to the surprise of what I'm capable vs. of what I do.
Not sure what that means. Don't Scoop and Drink, maybe?
-
Damn. Been awhile since I'e been here and this beauty of a thread is staring at me at the top of the page.
This is a pretty disgusting racist thread.
Identity politics wins when you break people down into primitive, tribal instincts= thread is a win for leftist, bad for humanity.
The Superbar has obviously become a bastion for enlightenment.
-
Mike, the parallel I drew between you and Chico is as follows:
You have a somewhat rigid (albeit opposite) world view. You both resort to anecdotal evidence (which IMO isn't worth much) to passionately, combatively and hyperbolically push that world view. For me, that's "angry Mike" who is similar to Chico. I recognize that character because I'm also at times guilty in that regard.
OTOH, you have a wit and sense of humor about yourself and the world around you that I think is engaging. When your "good angels" have the upper hand (which I'd guess would be the vast majority of the time) I'd bet you're a great guy.
Who the hell you calling a great guy? Eff off, Lenny!