MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: rocket surgeon on July 21, 2014, 05:41:16 PM
-
i looked all over espn for any mention of this. sorry if i missed it somewhere, but let's just say donald sterling said he wouldn't draft any gays so he wouldn't have to deal with it and get out of the way. and tony dungee hasn't even won any life time achievement awards from the naacp...yet. the reason i bring this up is because it's emblematic of our media(term used loosely) and how hypocritical it is
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/07/21/report-dungy-wouldnt-have-drafted-michael-sam-because-he-is-gay/
-
i looked all over espn for any mention of this. sorry if i missed it somewhere, but let's just say donald sterling said he wouldn't draft any gays so he wouldn't have to deal with it and get out of the way. and tony dungee hasn't even won any life time achievement awards from the naacp...yet. the reason i bring this up is because it's emblematic of our media(term used loosely) and how hypocritical it is
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/07/21/report-dungy-wouldnt-have-drafted-michael-sam-because-he-is-gay/
http://espn.go.com/blog/indianapolis-colts/post/_/id/6398/dungy-would-not-have-selected-sam
#1 Try looking
#2 I don't even understand what your misspoken, convoluted point was in your post. I can only guess that you either feel persecuted by the liberal media or that only white people are picked on for saying stupid things. Blah,blah,blah.
-
i looked all over espn for any mention of this. sorry if i missed it somewhere, but let's just say donald sterling said he wouldn't draft any gays so he wouldn't have to deal with it and get out of the way. and tony dungee hasn't even won any life time achievement awards from the naacp...yet. the reason i bring this up is because it's emblematic of our media(term used loosely) and how hypocritical it is
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/07/21/report-dungy-wouldnt-have-drafted-michael-sam-because-he-is-gay/
The statements that "dungee" made are not even in the same universe as the statements that Sterling made.
And even if they were - which, again, they weren't - Sterling is a team owner in a position of power and influence who can make or break people's lives. Dungy is a TV commentator.
-
http://espn.go.com/blog/indianapolis-colts/post/_/id/6398/dungy-would-not-have-selected-sam
#1 Try looking
#2 I don't even understand what your misspoken, convoluted point was in your post. I can only guess that you either feel persecuted by the liberal media or that only white people are picked on for saying stupid things. Blah,blah,blah.
wow! you sound like an angry person. i said sorry if i missed it. i went on espn.com and did not see it as i did on pittsburgh cbs., but thank you(i guess) for finding it. nope, don't feel persecuted by anything and nope again, many people of all persuasions say stupid things. hope you feel better soon though ?-(
-
The statements that "dungee" made are not even in the same universe as the statements that Sterling made.
And even if they were - which, again, they weren't - Sterling is a team owner in a position of power and influence who can make or break people's lives. Dungy is a TV commentator.
sorry about the "dungee" that was stupid.
you mean dungy was a tv commentator? remember rush limbaugh's comments? probably not in the same universe though, ey? yous guys are funny though
-
I heard the quote on espn radio with sedano & stink. A double standard? Meh. Not a good thing to say by dungy? Yup. There are some things that are bigger than sports.
-
wow! you sound like an angry person. i said sorry if i missed it. i went on espn.com and did not see it as i did on pittsburgh cbs., but thank you(i guess) for finding it. nope, don't feel persecuted by anything and nope again, many people of all persuasions say stupid things. hope you feel better soon though ?-(
Thanks!!
People blaming the media is a pet peeve of mine. After re-reading what I wrote, it came out different than what I was thinking.
I'm not absolving the media, by the way. There are plenty of times where they can be blamed. I just think it's the easy way out to automatically put the blame there. And, with this board's history of attacking ESPN, I put 2+2 together and came up with whatever it was I came up with.
-
sorry about the "dungee" that was stupid.
you mean dungy was a tv commentator? remember rush limbaugh's comments? probably not in the same universe though, ey? yous guys are funny though
No, not in the same universe. While the end results are equally disgusting, the intentions were much different.
Dungy's comments came from ignorance and religion. Rush's came from his political agenda that blacks are given everything and whites aren't.
-
This pretty much sums it up.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tony-dungy-s-assessment-of-rams-rookie-michael-sam-reflects-stunning-lack-of-courage-195216393.html
-
Michael Sam is a questionable NFL talent, and going public only made his draft stock fall. In this day and age, playing ability is the only important thing, and there were many questions. If Michael Sam he becomes a good player, then the Rams got a steal. I hope he has a good career.
From a team point of view Michael Sam is a distraction. The media will waste a lot of coaches and players time asking the same stupid questions. Players don't care about his orientation, or most coaches. Apparently, most of his teammates at Missouri knew he was gay and did not care. That generation doesn't really care about sexual orientation. That is not the issue.
I do think TD's skin color gives him leeway that others would never get. Maybe he can lead us to a frank discussion on issues affecting sports that will lead to a more universal understanding. (gay or race issues would be a good start)
-
ya know, let's be honest here- tony dungy probably said what most people were thinking, but wisely chose not say. dungy would have been better off not saying anything, but...i believe what dungy really means is, as a coach, dealing with the distractions the media will create here, will be a difficult atmosphere to coach in. the yahoo article, unfortunately has to drag tony dungy's "conservative christianity" into this, then proceeds to feed off that and blast him. most people today don't really care about michael sam, the homosexual football player. most people only care about michael sam, the football player and whether or not he can play football as dan wetzel reasonably concludes
-
ya know, let's be honest here- tony dungy probably said what most people were thinking, but wisely chose not say. dungy would have been better off not saying anything, but...i believe what dungy really means is, as a coach, dealing with the distractions the media will create here, will be a difficult atmosphere to coach in. the yahoo article, unfortunately has to drag tony dungy's "conservative christianity" into this, then proceeds to feed off that and blast him. most people today don't really care about michael sam, the homosexual football player. most people only care about michael sam, the football player and whether or not he can play football as dan wetzel reasonably concludes
eh... The guy traded for Keyshawn Johnson. And went to bat for Vick.
-
Simple reality is that a number of other people saying what Dungy said on ESPN would be suspended or worse, just the way it is. I love Dungy, respect the heck out of him...he has done work for us in the past so I am bias. I appreciate his honesty and he has the ability to be honest in a PC world without retribution. Many others do not.
He may not be right, but he said what he felt and I applaud that, especially in today's world where you often cannot do that without retaliation of some kind.
-
ya know, let's be honest here- tony dungy probably said what most people were thinking, but wisely chose not say. dungy would have been better off not saying anything, but...i believe what dungy really means is, as a coach, dealing with the distractions the media will create here, will be a difficult atmosphere to coach in. the yahoo article, unfortunately has to drag tony dungy's "conservative christianity" into this, then proceeds to feed off that and blast him. most people today don't really care about michael sam, the homosexual football player. most people only care about michael sam, the football player and whether or not he can play football as dan wetzel reasonably concludes
Dungy SHOULD catch flak for this. He is saying he would deny employment for Sam based solely on his sexual orientation. Because it would be a distraction.
Dungy needs to remember that people like him were once denied an opportunity to coach (or even play) solely for being black.
I wonder if Dungy would have considered Jackie Robinson to be a "distraction".
-
Dungy SHOULD catch flak for this. He is saying he would deny employment for Sam based solely on his sexual orientation. Because it would be a distraction.
Dungy needs to remember that people like him were once denied an opportunity to coach (or even play) solely for being black.
I wonder if Dungy would have considered Jackie Robinson to be a "distraction".
along with chico's quote +1000 it will be interesting to see how nbc handles this one. as i noted from the yahoo article posted previously. they will probably attack him from the "conservative christian" angle, then go in for the kill. that will play better for the pc crowd because you have a couple of dynamics working here-"i mean you got the first mainstream african-american who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy. i mean that's storybook man" maybe uncle joe can help get him out of this one. ;D
-
along with chico's quote +1000 it will be interesting to see how nbc handles this one. as i noted from the yahoo article posted previously. they will probably attack him from the "conservative christian" angle, then go in for the kill. that will play better for the pc crowd because you have a couple of dynamics working here-"i mean you got the first mainstream african-american who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy. i mean that's storybook man" maybe uncle joe can help get him out of this one. ;D
What are you saying here? Honestly.
-
Dungy SHOULD catch flak for this. He is saying he would deny employment for Sam based solely on his sexual orientation. Because it would be a distraction.
Dungy needs to remember that people like him were once denied an opportunity to coach (or even play) solely for being black.
I wonder if Dungy would have considered Jackie Robinson to be a "distraction".
First of all, I hate the criticism that a player will "cause a distraction." It is so vague that it ceases to mean anything.
But even beyond that, how about the simple irony that Tony Dungy, now a part of the media, is the one creating the damn distraction?
And all this from the guy who came out lobbying so strongly for teams to sign Michael Vick after his prison sentence - objectively a bigger distraction.
-
Dungy SHOULD catch flak for this. He is saying he would deny employment for Sam based solely on his sexual orientation. Because it would be a distraction.
Dungy needs to remember that people like him were once denied an opportunity to coach (or even play) solely for being black.
I wonder if Dungy would have considered Jackie Robinson to be a "distraction".
I have an issue with him "catching flak". I disagree with his opinion, but I think he should absolutely feel free to share his opinion. It may or may not be the prevailing viewpoint, but even extreme viewpoints(I wouldn't label this extreme) should be shared so we can have a discourse about it.
My whole thing is every time someone states an opinion and people react by attacking the speaker or trying to force the speaker to apologize we weaken our society and generally dumb people down while decreasing public discourse which was the whole point of founding this country in the first place.
I always remember a quote from the musical 1776(I know I'm a major nerd) from the congressional delegate from Rhode Island
"Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!"
Let's debate the merits of what Dungy said, but not the fact that he said it. I'm glad he did.
-
I have an issue with him "catching flak". I disagree with his opinion, but I think he should absolutely feel free to share his opinion. It may or may not be the prevailing viewpoint, but even extreme viewpoints(I wouldn't label this extreme) should be shared so we can have a discourse about it.
My whole thing is every time someone states an opinion and people react by attacking the speaker or trying to force the speaker to apologize we weaken our society and generally dumb people down while decreasing public discourse which was the whole point of founding this country in the first place.
I always remember a quote from the musical 1776(I know I'm a major nerd) from the congressional delegate from Rhode Island
"Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!"
Let's debate the merits of what Dungy said, but not the fact that he said it. I'm glad he did.
I put little merit into what he said because he was willing to defend other "distractions" and even accept them on his own team. If he wants to address the gay portion of the situation (which I think is his real talking point, he just doesn't want to say it), then I'll put more merit into his statements.
-
What are you saying here? Honestly.
seriously?
-
What are you saying here? Honestly.
I asked the same question when Joe said that very thing 6 years ago, and then wondered if someone other than Joe or his side said it how much of an uproar it would have caused, how many heads exploded, etc. Then I thought about those running a Dunkin Donuts for a bit.....
-
I have an issue with him "catching flak". I disagree with his opinion, but I think he should absolutely feel free to share his opinion. It may or may not be the prevailing viewpoint, but even extreme viewpoints(I wouldn't label this extreme) should be shared so we can have a discourse about it.
My whole thing is every time someone states an opinion and people react by attacking the speaker or trying to force the speaker to apologize we weaken our society and generally dumb people down while decreasing public discourse which was the whole point of founding this country in the first place.
I always remember a quote from the musical 1776(I know I'm a major nerd) from the congressional delegate from Rhode Island
"Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!"
Let's debate the merits of what Dungy said, but not the fact that he said it. I'm glad he did.
Agree
The part that bothers me to no end is that the Flak Givers, the Flak Shooters tend to ramp up or dial back their targeting. As has ALWAYS been the case and is even more of an issue in today's society, it isn't always what is said, but who says the what. Free passes or wrist slaps are given out a plenty, and watching the double standard is half the fun sad part.
Reminds of a time when someone talked about a "light skinned" gentlemen without a dialect....it's all about who says it.
-
eh... The guy traded for Keyshawn Johnson. And went to bat for Vick.
Not only that, but "distractions" are what prevented some people from integrating sports in the first place.
Good thing Branch Rickey had the balls to deal with the "distractions." Too bad Dungy doesn't seem to have that courage.
-
Simple reality is that a number of other people saying what Dungy said on ESPN would be suspended or worse, just the way it is. I love Dungy, respect the heck out of him...he has done work for us in the past so I am bias. I appreciate his honesty and he has the ability to be honest in a PC world without retribution. Many others do not.
He may not be right, but he said what he felt and I applaud that, especially in today's world where you often cannot do that without retaliation of some kind.
Let's give Tony Dungy the benefit of the doubt - let's assume he's not a bigot. Given that, the BEST we can say about him is that he's a bit of a coward. He knows what's right but wants someone else to be Branch Rickey. He wants someone else's kids to go to integrated schools, someone else to live in the integrated community. His career is testimony to his own ability AND to people with courage who were willing to deal with the "distractions" that come with employment based on merit without regard to color, sexual orientation, etc. You want to applaud his hypocrisy as honesty and lack of PC? Fine, but it just makes you as hypocritical and wrongheaded as Dungy.
-
Let's give Tony Dungy the benefit of the doubt - let's assume he's not a bigot. Given that, the BEST we can say about him is that he's a bit of a coward. He knows what's right but wants someone else to be Branch Rickey. He wants someone else's kids to go to integrated schools, someone else to live in the integrated community. His career is testimony to his own ability AND to people with courage who were willing to deal with the "distractions" that come with employment based on merit without regard to color, sexual orientation, etc. You want to applaud his hypocrisy as honesty and lack of PC? Fine, but it just makes you as hypocritical and wrongheaded as Dungy.
Exactly. His career is a testament to the courage of others to stand up to the status quo and to change the system. It is very likely that Dungy would not have been an NFL coach had he been born a generation earlier.
But when it comes to integrating open homosexuals into professional sports? That's someone else's problem I guess.
-
Exactly. His career is a testament to the courage of others to stand up to the status quo and to change the system. It is very likely that Dungy would not have been an NFL coach had he been born a generation earlier.
But when it comes to integrating open homosexuals into professional sports? That's someone else's problem I guess.
I will be very surprised if Tony Dungy doesn't issue a retraction/clarification in the near future.
-
Integrating black men into baseball in 1947 was a MUCH bigger deal than integrating homosexual men into football in 2014.
In 1947 you had media, coaches, owners, players and fans all against Jackie Robinson.
In 2014 you have a small minority of coaches and players against Michael Sam. You have fans about 50/50, and the 50% for is growing. Media is 90/10 for Sam, but agitating to get a story.
If he has a good camp, he will be on the team. What more do you want?
-
Not only that, but "distractions" are what prevented some people from integrating sports in the first place.
Good thing Branch Rickey had the balls to deal with the "distractions." Too bad Dungy doesn't seem to have that courage.
This.
I understand that Sam could be a "distraction", but if teams ran away from "distractions" forever rosters would look a whole lot different in every sport. We could write off anybody different because they would be a "distraction". (women in the work place, integrated sports, integrated military, etc.)
Tony is welcome to share his opinion, but he also better be prepared for the fallout when he says something so stupid.
-
Integrating black men into baseball in 1947 was a MUCH bigger deal than integrating homosexual men into football in 2014.
In 1947 you had media, coaches, owners, players and fans all against Jackie Robinson.
In 2014 you have a small minority of coaches and players against Michael Sam. You have fans about 50/50, and the 50% for is growing. Media is 90/10 for Sam, but agitating to get a story.
If he has a good camp, he will be on the team. What more do you want?
I don't want coaches (or former coaches) admitting that they wouldn't take a player because of his sexual orientation.
I agree with you that Sam is light years ahead of Robinson, but there is still a ways to go.
-
As as for the PR and the "flak," I certainly am not going to protest NBC in hopes that he gets fired. But I am not going to weep and break out the "PC Strawman" if he does.
-
So Tony Dungy thinks Tony Dungy is a hypocrite.
http://deadspin.com/keith-olbermann-blasts-tony-dungy-1608868014?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
-
I don't want coaches (or former coaches) admitting that they wouldn't take a player because of his sexual orientation.
I agree with you that Sam is light years ahead of Robinson, but there is still a ways to go.
You guys are acting as if Tony Dungy kept him from being drafted.
Michael Sam DID get drafted. He WILL have a chance to for a spot on an NFL roster. It is up to his ability now. I hope he makes it and has a successful career so we can stop all this metal masturbation.
In the end, Tony Dungy is expressing an opinion. This is America. We all have a right to an opinion.
-
You guys are acting as if Tony Dungy kept him from being drafted.
Michael Sam DID get drafted. He WILL have a chance to for a spot on an NFL roster. It is up to his ability now. I hope he makes it and has a successful career so we can stop all this metal masturbation.
In the end, Tony Dungy is expressing an opinion. This is America. We all have a right to an opinion.
Right. And we have a right to say his opinion is dumb.
-
You guys are acting as if Tony Dungy kept him from being drafted.
Michael Sam DID get drafted. He WILL have a chance to for a spot on an NFL roster. It is up to his ability now. I hope he makes it and has a successful career so we can stop all this metal masturbation.
In the end, Tony Dungy is expressing an opinion. This is America. We all have a right to an opinion.
Ah, yes. When in doubt, fly the flag of freedom of speech and oppression. Do you you even know what the first amendment means?
-
I don't want coaches (or former coaches) admitting that they wouldn't take a player because of his sexual orientation.
I agree with you that Sam is light years ahead of Robinson, but there is still a ways to go.
C'mon man. You're better than that. It was an opinion. He expressed it.
This is why we can't solve these problems. We can't even express opinions about them.
-
You guys are acting as if Tony Dungy kept him from being drafted.
Michael Sam DID get drafted. He WILL have a chance to for a spot on an NFL roster. It is up to his ability now. I hope he makes it and has a successful career so we can stop all this metal masturbation.
In the end, Tony Dungy is expressing an opinion. This is America. We all have a right to an opinion.
Nobody said Tony can't have that opinion. He's just wrong, that's the problem.
"I wouldn't put a woman on my staff because it would distract the men. She can go back and be a housewife."
"I wouldn't hire a (insert specific group here) because it would distract my staff. They can go work someplace else."
It's unacceptable.
-
Let's give Tony Dungy the benefit of the doubt - let's assume he's not a bigot. Given that, the BEST we can say about him is that he's a bit of a coward. He knows what's right but wants someone else to be Branch Rickey. He wants someone else's kids to go to integrated schools, someone else to live in the integrated community. His career is testimony to his own ability AND to people with courage who were willing to deal with the "distractions" that come with employment based on merit without regard to color, sexual orientation, etc. You want to applaud his hypocrisy as honesty and lack of PC? Fine, but it just makes you as hypocritical and wrongheaded as Dungy.
He's not a bigot in my opinion. I've had the pleasure of working with him on many occasions and find him to be an upstanding individual.
I don't find him hypocritical at all, in fact I think you missed the entire point. I find the hypocrisy in those that decide who gets wrist slapped, who gets fired, who should be outraged. Put another way, someone other than Tony Dungy says that, and hell breaks lose. Put another way, some on the right says a certain someone is light skinned without a dialect and he is destroyed while the person that did use those words is given a butterfly kiss wrist slap.
-
Nobody said Tony can't have that opinion. He's just wrong, that's the problem.
"I wouldn't put a woman on my staff because it would distract the men. She can go back and be a housewife."
"I wouldn't hire a (insert specific group here) because it would distract my staff. They can go work someplace else."
It's unacceptable.
And sad, Tony dealt with so many barriers in his life with a high degree of class - unfortunate he spoke these words and diminish what he has achieved.
-
C'mon man. You're better than that. It was an opinion. He expressed it.
This is why we can't solve these problems. We can't even express opinions about them.
But his opinion in this situation is a divergence from the precedent he set on his opinions previously. He hasn't come out and said Sam would be a distraction because he's gay. If Dungy said that, it'd be different valid because he'd be isolating why Sam is a distraction. Vick was a distraction, Keyshawn too, but Dungy was in favor of them.
-
C'mon man. You're better than that. It was an opinion. He expressed it.
This is why we can't solve these problems. We can't even express opinions about them.
People can SAY whatever they want, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
-
C'mon man. You're better than that. It was an opinion. He expressed it.
This is why we can't solve these problems. We can't even express opinions about them.
What are you talking about? How claim that he can he not express his opinion...when he certainly did just that.
What you want is for him to be able to express his opinions without criticism, which is the antithesis of free speech.
-
He's not a bigot in my opinion. I've had the pleasure of working with him on many occasions and find him to be an upstanding individual.
I don't find him hypocritical at all, in fact I think you missed the entire point. I find the hypocrisy in those that decide who gets wrist slapped, who gets fired, who should be outraged. Put another way, someone other than Tony Dungy says that, and hell breaks lose. Put another way, some on the right says a certain someone is light skinned without a dialect and he is destroyed while the person that did use those words is given a butterfly kiss wrist slap.
It is really hard to have reasonable discussions with people like you who have to live life bearing the cross of a persecution complex.
-
C'mon man. You're better than that. It was an opinion. He expressed it.
This is why we can't solve these problems. We can't even express opinions about them.
Actually, CERTAIN people can express opinions. Others cannot, without fear of retribution. That's how our society works today. You'll be labled a bigot, racist, misogynist, homophobe, etc, usually depending on what ideological stripes you wear. If, however, you wear different stripes, well you might get a gentle finger wagging and that's it.
Reminds me of a time when someone said Macaca vs someone else saying Hymie. Crazy different outcomes.....of course different people said them and thus, different outcomes.
That's how our society works.
-
C'mon man. You're better than that. It was an opinion. He expressed it.
This is why we can't solve these problems. We can't even express opinions about them.
For the record, I'm not saying Tony or any coach can't express his/her opinion.
I AM saying that I wish they didn't have that belief because I think it's wrong.
People shouldn't be prevented from working someplace because they are (male/female/black/yellow/green/blue/gay/bi/straight/etc).
-
Actually, CERTAIN people can express opinions. Others cannot, without fear of retribution. That's how our society works today. You'll be labled a bigot, racist, misogynist, homophobe, etc, usually depending on what ideological stripes you wear. If, however, you wear different stripes, well you might get a gentle finger wagging and that's it.
Reminds me of a time when someone said Macaca vs someone else saying Hymie. Crazy different outcomes.....of course different people said them and thus, different outcomes.
That's how our society works.
Easy dude.
We don't need to jump up on the soap box. Keep it simple.
Tony expressed an opinion. Now he's getting ripped (by some).
The punishment/hypocrisy/media/etc. isn't the issue (yet). When that happens, then you can start down this path.
-
People can SAY whatever they want, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
Nor does it give you the authority to say they are wrong. They might be wrong in your opinion, doesn't make him wrong, however.
What if someone had a choice to hire a candidate among a man and a woman, one was incredibly flirtatious and had a bad reputation for hooking up with the men in her office, causing all kinds of issues. The male candidate was not quite as accomplished, but didn't carry any baggage. As a hiring manager you decided on the latter, not the former and told HR why due to those concerns. Some in this society would say you are discriminating, in fact this situation was one shared with me by a colleague.
Maybe Dungy was merely talking about what he, in his opinion as a football man, thought would happen to his team and whether it was worth it. Is he wrong? Maybe. Is he right, maybe.
-
The issuance of apologies in these situations is also pretty awesome.
Some people are allowed to give the apology and all is forgiven. Others, it doesn't matter. Again, often correlated to the ideological stripes one has.
-
What if someone had a choice to hire a candidate among a man and a woman, one was incredibly flirtatious and had a bad reputation for hooking up with the men in her office, causing all kinds of issues. The male candidate was not quite as accomplished, but didn't carry any baggage. As a hiring manager you decided on the latter, not the former and told HR why due to those concerns. Some in this society would say you are discriminating, in fact this situation was one shared with me by a colleague.
Keep building that strawman Chicos....
-
The issuance of apologies in these situations is also pretty awesome.
Some people are allowed to give the apology and all is forgiven. Others, it doesn't matter. Again, often correlated to the ideological stripes one has.
You mean like that noted leftist Riley Cooper?
-
For the record, I'm not saying Tony or any coach can't express his/her opinion.
I AM saying that I wish they didn't have that belief because I think it's wrong.
People shouldn't be prevented from working someplace because they are (male/female/black/yellow/green/blue/gay/bi/straight/etc).
Michael Sam was drafted and will have a chance to make an NFL roster. Anything else?
-
Dungy would have been better served if he simply said he was a God-fearing man who finds Sam's sexual orientation an abomination that it would be far too big a "distraction" for him to handle even though he's a self-pimping guru of solving repeated "distractions" for many other players and/or organizations.
-
Nor does it give you the authority to say they are wrong. They might be wrong in your opinion, doesn't make him wrong, however.
What if someone had a choice to hire a candidate among a man and a woman, one was incredibly flirtatious and had a bad reputation for hooking up with the men in her office, causing all kinds of issues. The male candidate was not quite as accomplished, but didn't carry any baggage. As a hiring manager you decided on the latter, not the former and told HR why due to those concerns. Some in this society would say you are discriminating, in fact this situation was one shared with me by a colleague.
Maybe Dungy was merely talking about what he, in his opinion as a football man, thought would happen to his team and whether it was worth it. Is he wrong? Maybe. Is he right, maybe.
Your specific scenario, illustrates a specific trait or rationale of a person. That SPECIFIC woman had a reputation. While I don't agree with assigning that kind of stuff, at least it's localized to a specific person.
What Tony has done (in theory) is assign the trait of "distraction" to any gay football player. If he said "I've met Michael Sam, and I've interviewed him at length. I wouldn't hire him because I think HE could be a distraction.", it would be tough to argue about that because I don't know Michael Sam.
-
Michael Sam was drafted and will have a chance to make an NFL roster. Anything else?
Righhhhht, and Jackie Robinson got a job too... doesn't mean the rest of the league was fine.
Again, Michael Sam is MILES ahead of Jackie Robinson, but the underlying logic is still the same. Same for women in the workplace.
People shouldn't be disqualified for a job (on ANY team or ANY business) because they are (insert thing), which is what Tony is admitting he'd do (if he could).
I'm not "outraged", but when people in football say stupid crap, they should be called on it.
-
Here are facts:
-Tony Dungy would not have drafted Michael Sam because he believes Sam would be a distraction
-Tony Dungy supported bringing players in that would cause distractions in previous instances
-Tony Dungy is allowed to voice his opinion
-Others are allowed to voice their opinion in return
-Tony Dungy is a hypocrite in this instance
Here are opinions:
-I believe Tony Dungy's opinion in this matter is wrong
-I believe he shouldn't apologize for his opinion but he should at a minimum recognize his hypocrisy so he can grow from this.
-I believe anyone who tries to "shout down" Dungy for this and/or extract an apology is wrong
-I believe that anyone who questions the fact that Dungy isn't being forced to apologize is also wrong
-I believe that we will win(and that meme should stop at games) ;D
-
Righhhhht, and Jackie Robinson got a job too... doesn't mean the rest of the league was fine.
Again, Michael Sam is MILES ahead of Jackie Robinson, but the underlying logic is still the same. Same for women in the workplace.
People shouldn't be disqualified for a job (on ANY team or ANY business) because of they are (insert thing).
I'm not "outraged", but when people in football say stupid crap, they should be called on it.
SO,
If I stipulate for the record that Tony Dungy is a hypocrite because he advocated for Michael Vick (a distraction) will you acknowledge that his opinion on Michael Sam did not keep Michael Sam from being drafted (that is good, right?) and Michael Sam has a chance to play NFL football (I hope he does).
-
Here are facts:
-Tony Dungy would not have drafted Michael Sam because he believes Sam would be a distraction
-Tony Dungy supported bringing players in that would cause distractions in previous instances
-Tony Dungy is allowed to voice his opinion
-Others are allowed to voice their opinion in return
-Tony Dungy is a hypocrite in this instance
Well done. One additional fact: Tony Dungy has benefitted from employers willing to deal with the distractions his employment might cause.
The only thing that could possibly make "Tony Dungy is a hypocrite in this instance" not a FACT would be if he was lying, didn't care about the "distraction" angle and simply didn't want homosexuals on his team because they're homosexuals. In that case, the FACT is he's not a hypocrite, he's a liar and a homophobe.
-
SO,
If I stipulate for the record that Tony Dungy is a hypocrite because he advocated for Michael Vick (a distraction) will you acknowledge that his opinion on Michael Sam did not keep Michael Sam from being drafted (that is good, right?) and Michael Sam has a chance to play NFL football (I hope he does).
You are right on.
-
SO,
If I stipulate for the record that Tony Dungy is a hypocrite because he advocated for Michael Vick (a distraction) will you acknowledge that his opinion on Michael Sam did not keep Michael Sam from being drafted (that is good, right?) and Michael Sam has a chance to play NFL football (I hope he does).
Yes, so to be clear, Tony's opinion has no effect on Michael's actual employment. That's completely fair.
And yes, Tony is a hypocrite because of his other comments.
Sam is getting an opportunity, which is a great start.
I just don't share Tony's opinion, because I think it's flat out wrong to discriminate against somebody because they are gay.
-
Keep building that strawman Chicos....
Modus Operandi.
If his barn ever catches fire, it will be gone in seconds with the hundreds of strawmen he has stored in there..
-
Here are facts:
-Tony Dungy would not have drafted Michael Sam because he believes Sam would be a distraction
-Tony Dungy supported bringing players in that would cause distractions in previous instances
-Tony Dungy is allowed to voice his opinion
-Others are allowed to voice their opinion in return
-Tony Dungy is a hypocrite in this instance
This.
-
Yes, so to be clear, Tony's opinion has no effect on Michael's actual employment. That's completely fair.
And yes, Tony is a hypocrite because of his other comments.
Sam is getting an opportunity, which is a great start.
I just don't share Tony's opinion, because I think it's flat out wrong to discriminate against somebody because they are gay.
Fair enough.
I'd like to teach the world to sing........
-
Fair enough.
I'd like to teach the world to sing........
Well, truthfully, as you said before, we are WAYYYYY ahead of where we were, and the culture is continuing to change. That's great. All positive stuff. I absolutely recognize that.
However, I still think people (like Tony) who say stupid stuff need to be called out. That's part of the progress/process of change.
Now, that doesn't mean you need to give your 92yr old grandmother a lecture on tolerance, but a guy like Tony? He should know better.
-
Does anyone believe this is anything but Tony's religious beliefs that are driving his statement?
He has shown no reluctance signing "bad" people before and I have no doubt that he understands discrimination against a particular group of people.
-
Does anyone believe this is anything but Tony's religious beliefs that are driving his statement?
He has shown no reluctance signing "bad" people before and I have no doubt that he understands discrimination against a particular group of people.
Hard to think otherwise. And I would totally understand it and respect it if he would just say that.
-
Easy dude.
We don't need to jump up on the soap box. Keep it simple.
Tony expressed an opinion. Now he's getting ripped (by some).
The punishment/hypocrisy/media/etc. isn't the issue (yet). When that happens, then you can start down this path.
That's part of the entire issue. The ripping and level of ripping (intensity) is always a site to behold. The veracity of punishment / outrage / etc has many filters based on who said it, not necessarily the what.
-
That's part of the entire issue. The ripping and level of ripping (intensity) is always a site to behold. The veracity of punishment / outrage / etc has many filters based on who said it, not necessarily the what.
What exactly is your point? Are you saying that a black guy who plays the "distraction" card to hide his ignorance and homophobia is treated differently than the white guy who does the same thing? Seriously?
-
That's part of the entire issue. The ripping and level of ripping (intensity) is always a site to behold. The veracity of punishment / outrage / etc has many filters based on who said it, not necessarily the what.
We had a nice, open exchange between several posters, and the media never came up once. Politics never really came up.
You interject, and it's immediately about some sort of bigger media/political/racial hypocrisy.
You're not wrong I guess, but I just don't think it necessary to race out to that part of the discussion. In the coming weeks, I'm sure more stuff will be said, and then we can all pontificate on the media and it's hypocrisy.
-
Very simply stated, the "distraction" excuse is a LIE. Plain and simple. Sam has been through rookie orientation, mini-camp, voluntary workouts, etc. What have we read about him through all of this? Nothing!!!
And the reason is simple. Jeff Fisher is a man. Tony Dungy is a lying, intolerant coward.
Tony has never shied from distractions.
1. He was a very vocal supporter of the most hated athlete in the NFL (Vick).
2. He was a huge supporter of the biggest distraction in the history of the NFL (Tebow).
3. He had no problem with the distraction of hiring known gang members (Johnson).
This is about one thing and one thing only. Tony's intolerant religious view. Tony is against gays having the same rights as non-gay Americans. And this isn't the first time he has been very vocal about it.
Tony has the right to whatever views he wants. To couch it in terms of being a "distraction" exposes him for the kind of man that he is.
-
We had a nice, open exchange between several posters, and the media never came up once. Politics never really came up.
You interject, and it's immediately about some sort of bigger media/political/racial hypocrisy.
You're not wrong I guess, but I just don't think it necessary to race out to that part of the discussion. In the coming weeks, I'm sure more stuff will be said, and then we can all pontificate on the media and it's hypocrisy.
just curious, what is "bigger media/political/racial hypocrisy" about what chico said?
what chico said is unfortunately right. i could cite many examples but i won't. sometimes, however, what chico said is part of the "open exchange"
-
just curious, what is "bigger media/political/racial hypocrisy" about what chico said?
what chico said is unfortunately right. i could cite many examples but i won't. sometimes, however, what chico said is part of the "open exchange"
I think his point is that Chicos always turns any discussion like this into a right vs. left political thing.
Most of us think it is about one lying, intolerant man. Nothing to do with Chicos agenda.
-
Very simply stated, the "distraction" excuse is a LIE. Plain and simple. Sam has been through rookie orientation, mini-camp, voluntary workouts, etc. What have we read about him through all of this? Nothing!!!
And the reason is simple. Jeff Fisher is a man. Tony Dungy is a lying, intolerant coward.
Tony has never shied from distractions.
1. He was a very vocal supporter of the most hated athlete in the NFL (Vick).
2. He was a huge supporter of the biggest distraction in the history of the NFL (Tebow).
3. He had no problem with the distraction of hiring known gang members (Johnson).
This is about one thing and one thing only. Tony's intolerant religious view. Tony is against gays having the same rights as non-gay Americans. And this isn't the first time he has been very vocal about it.
Tony has the right to whatever views he wants. To couch it in terms of being a "distraction" exposes him for the kind of man that he is.
Wow, is this an excellent analysis. I'll pay the ultimate compliment: I wish I had said it first!
-
just curious, what is "bigger media/political/racial hypocrisy" about what chico said?
what chico said is unfortunately right. i could cite many examples but i won't. sometimes, however, what chico said is part of the "open exchange"
Because what Tony Dungy said is about TONY DUNGY. We don't need to make it into a whole commentary on how America is PC or not PC, light skinned, not lot skinned, "flak givers", etc.
I'm sure next week there will be a statement from NBC, and at that point, we can all gasp at how the world is too PC, and Tony is just a good dude who go railroaded, but for now, it would be nice to just discuss the actual content of what he said.
Tony said something. Let's discuss it... not the political implications or the eventual political/media hypocrisy.
When somebody races out to that end of the conversation, it makes me think they are just sitting around waiting for stuff like this so they can promote their own agenda/belief. It's bogus.
Simple reality is that a number of other people saying what Dungy said on ESPN would be suspended or worse, just the way it is. I love Dungy, respect the heck out of him...he has done work for us in the past so I am bias. I appreciate his honesty and he has the ability to be honest in a PC world without retribution. Many others do not.
He may not be right, but he said what he felt and I applaud that, especially in today's world where you often cannot do that without retaliation of some kind.
I asked the same question when Joe said that very thing 6 years ago, and then wondered if someone other than Joe or his side said it how much of an uproar it would have caused, how many heads exploded, etc. Then I thought about those running a Dunkin Donuts for a bit.....
Agree
The part that bothers me to no end is that the Flak Givers, the Flak Shooters tend to ramp up or dial back their targeting. As has ALWAYS been the case and is even more of an issue in today's society, it isn't always what is said, but who says the what. Free passes or wrist slaps are given out a plenty, and watching the double standard is half the fun sad part.
Reminds of a time when someone talked about a "light skinned" gentlemen without a dialect....it's all about who says it.
He's not a bigot in my opinion. I've had the pleasure of working with him on many occasions and find him to be an upstanding individual.
I don't find him hypocritical at all, in fact I think you missed the entire point. I find the hypocrisy in those that decide who gets wrist slapped, who gets fired, who should be outraged. Put another way, someone other than Tony Dungy says that, and hell breaks lose. Put another way, some on the right says a certain someone is light skinned without a dialect and he is destroyed while the person that did use those words is given a butterfly kiss wrist slap.
-
This is about one thing and one thing only. Tony's intolerant religious view. Tony is against gays having the same rights as non-gay Americans. And this isn't the first time he has been very vocal about it.
Tony has the right to whatever views he wants. To couch it in terms of being a "distraction" exposes him for the kind of man that he is.
While I agree that Tony is likely couching his views behind distraction, to assume that it is religious based(while likely true) is unfair. Further, if it is a personally held view regardless of it origination, that doesn't make it intolerant. Do I think the view is wrong? Yes, and clearly so do you. But that doesn't mean we get to call it intolerant or unacceptable.
Sorry but intolerance as a concept is thrown around way too much and it stifles conversation IMHO
-
Didn't Sam get drafted in the 8th round? His chances of making a squad are slim. Dungy was being honest when he doubted he would draft such a distraction when the player has such a slim chance to produce. He didn't deny anyone a chance to make a living and he wasn't discriminating against someone's sexual preference. He simply made a judgement that all the hoopla wasn't worth the product if he were in the position to draft players. Everybody need to take a deep breath on this one.
-
While I agree that Tony is likely couching his views behind distraction, to assume that it is religious based(while likely true) is unfair. Further, if it is a personally held view regardless of it origination, that doesn't make it intolerant. Do I think the view is wrong? Yes, and clearly so do you. But that doesn't mean we get to call it intolerant or unacceptable.
Sorry but intolerance as a concept is thrown around way too much and it stifles conversation IMHO
I think denying another group the rights that you yourself enjoy is the essence of intolerance.
That being said, I support his right to feel that way. I think it is wrong and un-American, but I was raised in an Evangelical church so I know why he feels the way he does. It is what he was taught.
It reminds me very much of the early years of the AIDS crisis when many "christians" held the view that the gays got what they deserved so let 'em die.
-
I think denying another group the rights that you yourself enjoy is the essence of intolerance.
That being said, I support his right to feel that way. I think it is wrong and un-American, but I was raised in an Evangelical church so I know why he feels the way he does. It is what he was taught.
It reminds me very much of the early years of the AIDS crisis when many "christians" held the view that the gays got what they deserved so let 'em die.
very well said, but careful of the strawmen. you are right though ;D
-
I think denying another group the rights that you yourself enjoy is the essence of intolerance.
That being said, I support his right to feel that way. I think it is wrong and un-American, but I was raised in an Evangelical church so I know why he feels the way he does. It is what he was taught.
It reminds me very much of the early years of the AIDS crisis when many "christians" held the view that the gays got what they deserved so let 'em die.
I'm sorry I just don't see anyone's right being denied in this story. Sam was drafted and has a chance to WIN a place on an NFL team. I take Tony at his word that he just wouldn't welcome the media circus in this instance. I'm sure were it a Michael Vick or Tom Brady he would not have a problem because they bring attention regardless.
-
I'm sorry I just don't see anyone's right being denied in this story. Sam was drafted and has a chance to WIN a place on an NFL team. I take Tony at his word that he just wouldn't welcome the media circus in this instance. I'm sure were it a Michael Vick or Tom Brady he would not have a problem because they bring attention regardless.
I was referring to the work that Dungy has done fighting against gay marriage.
It's interesting, though, that he never speaks out about actual criminals in the NFL - all of those arrested for assault or beating women over the last few years. I guess only the gays really bother this man.
-
I'm sorry I just don't see anyone's right being denied in this story. Sam was drafted and has a chance to WIN a place on an NFL team. I take Tony at his word that he just wouldn't welcome the media circus in this instance. I'm sure were it a Michael Vick or Tom Brady he would not have a problem because they can actually make the team better.
fixed
-
We had a nice, open exchange between several posters, and the media never came up once. Politics never really came up.
You interject, and it's immediately about some sort of bigger media/political/racial hypocrisy.
You're not wrong I guess, but I just don't think it necessary to race out to that part of the discussion. In the coming weeks, I'm sure more stuff will be said, and then we can all pontificate on the media and it's hypocrisy.
Actually, go back and read the posts, I was not the first person to bring up a political example. I responded to one post that did.
You can wish to ignore that hypocrisy exists throughout society and is played differently in the media, etc if you wish, we all know that is the case and can come up with examples until time ends to prove it out.
I can only imagine Brand and Sultan's responses in this thread, one of the better moves I've made.
-
I think denying another group the rights that you yourself enjoy is the essence of intolerance.
Not defending what he said, but he isn't denying anyone their rights, he is expressing his choice/opinion. He isn't saying no one should draft Sam, he is saying he wouldn't. I agree with your assumption of where his opinion is coming from but that doesn't change that, however misguided, he is entitled to it and to label it as intolerance is to stifle the free exchange of ideas.
-
Happy to see Tony didn't apologize, which surprised me a bit. He stood by his answer, certainly clarified it but stood by it. Reasoned and well thought out. He wouldn't want the circus attached to it, and as a coach that is a big deal.
-
Happy to see Tony didn't apologize, which surprised me a bit. He stood by his answer, certainly clarified it but stood by it. Reasoned and well thought out. He wouldn't want the circus attached to it, and as a coach that is a big deal.
Agreed....doesn't make him any less of a hypocrite.
-
Happy to see Tony didn't apologize, which surprised me a bit. He stood by his answer, certainly clarified it but stood by it. Reasoned and well thought out. He wouldn't want the circus attached to it, and as a coach that is a big deal.
At best Tony Dungy has revealed himself to be a very small and intolerant man. At worst, a bigot. And as someone who admired him, this makes you happy?
Would you likewise celebrate a white guy who opined that he wouldn't have played for Dungy because he didn't want the "circus" attached to the hiring of the first black NFL head coach?
Intolerance and bigotry can seem to the gullible to be "reasoned and well thought out", I suppose, but that doesn't make them any less intolerant or bigoted.
-
Actually, go back and read the posts, I was not the first person to bring up a political example. I responded to one post that did.
You can wish to ignore that hypocrisy exists throughout society and is played differently in the media, etc if you wish, we all know that is the case and can come up with examples until time ends to prove it out.
I can only imagine Brand and Sultan's responses in this thread, one of the better moves I've made.
That's fine, but you seem to run sprint immediately to these political/hypocrisy angles. It's happened a lot over the years.
I understand that if Tony was green and from Mars, the story might be different. I also understand that MSNBC and FOX could spend weeks talking about this and come up with completely different conclusions and make thousands of inferences. (hooray, no biases here!)
All that is a given, I just don't know why we have to immediately rush to that angle on the story. This isn't a political board. We don't need to frame up every topic in the context of political/media/racial hypocrisy. We can just discuss it and exchange some thoughts.
You are correct that you weren't the first guy in the thread to do it, but it seems to be a habit that you have formed, and out of frustration, I had to say something.
-
Happy to see Tony didn't apologize, which surprised me a bit. He stood by his answer, certainly clarified it but stood by it. Reasoned and well thought out. He wouldn't want the circus attached to it, and as a coach that is a big deal.
What distraction? What circus? Jeff Fisher doesn't think Sam has been a distraction.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-07-23/michael-sam-tony-dungy-jeff-fisher-st-louis-rams-nfl-draft
So *at best* one could say that Dungy was completely off-base in his thoughts that Sam would be a distraction. Maybe he should apologize simply for assuming there would be a distraction in the first place?
-
Maybe he really is distracted by all these gay people as they stir up some special feelings deep within his soul ;)
-
I was referring to the work that Dungy has done fighting against gay marriage.
It's interesting, though, that he never speaks out about actual criminals in the NFL - all of those arrested for assault or beating women over the last few years. I guess only the gays really bother this man.
Proof that brandx harbors resentment toward gay men.
-
Happy to see Tony didn't apologize, which surprised me a bit. He stood by his answer, certainly clarified it but stood by it. Reasoned and well thought out. He wouldn't want the circus attached to it, and as a coach that is a big deal.
and this isn't the only player that some coaches/gm's would ignore in order to avoid the media distractions. examples-chris kluwe, allen iverson, terrell owens, etc, where the baggage is heavier than their talent. how many reporters approach coach x and ask him why he wouldn't consider bringing allen iverson on board? if his answer is that he doesn't want the distractions, does that make him a racist? some gm's avoid certain players because of the agent they employ. scott boras anyone? if you really think about it, the media is kind of getting in sams way here and diminishing some of his opportunities. if i were sam, i would tell the media to f' off...good luck with that sam
-
and this isn't the only player that some coaches/gm's would ignore in order to avoid the media distractions. examples-chris kluwe, allen iverson, terrell owens, etc, where the baggage is heavier than their talent. how many reporters approach coach x and ask him why he wouldn't consider bringing allen iverson on board? if his answer is that he doesn't want the distractions, does that make him a racist? some gm's avoid certain players because of the agent they employ. scott boras anyone? if you really think about it, the media is kind of getting in sams way here and diminishing some of his opportunities. if i were sam, i would tell the media to f' off...good luck with that sam
Kluwe, Iverson and Owens are distractions because they intentionally distract.
Sam is a "distraction" because he is gay.
-
and this isn't the only player that some coaches/gm's would ignore in order to avoid the media distractions. examples-chris kluwe, allen iverson, terrell owens, etc, where the baggage is heavier than their talent. how many reporters approach coach x and ask him why he wouldn't consider bringing allen iverson on board? if his answer is that he doesn't want the distractions, does that make him a racist? some gm's avoid certain players because of the agent they employ. scott boras anyone? if you really think about it, the media is kind of getting in sams way here and diminishing some of his opportunities. if i were sam, i would tell the media to f' off...good luck with that sam
I don't really disagree with you here, Surgeon, except for the fact that Dungy does have issues with the gay lifestyle. He has said that he does not believe a gay man should have the same right to get married that he himself enjoys. That is really the context in which I see this issue.
I think Dungy used the "distraction" excuse as a cover.
-
Kluwe, Iverson and Owens are distractions because they intentionally distract.
Sam is a "distraction" because he is gay.
kluwe, iverson and owens-ok, kind of. it's their personalities-i guess you could say they were born that way?
sam should not be distracting- he is gay. who really cares. it's the media. look what they did with tim tebow. tim tebow obviously wasn't very good. the media a real hard one for him. yes, i do know why. anyway, how many thousands of players don't make it in pro sports that you never hear a word about? but an 8th round draft pick-leave him alone. play ball
-
and this isn't the only player that some coaches/gm's would ignore in order to avoid the media distractions. examples-chris kluwe, allen iverson, terrell owens, etc, where the baggage is heavier than their talent. how many reporters approach coach x and ask him why he wouldn't consider bringing allen iverson on board? if his answer is that he doesn't want the distractions, does that make him a racist? some gm's avoid certain players because of the agent they employ. scott boras anyone? if you really think about it, the media is kind of getting in sams way here and diminishing some of his opportunities. if i were sam, i would tell the media to f' off...good luck with that sam
You are 100% correct. But in THIS CASE, for this individual (Dungy), he's claiming he wouldn't have drafted Sam d/t Sam being a "distraction." Yet he (Dungy) was more than willing to acquire/support other distractions in the past. So, I just want to know why. And, if it's because Sam is gay, and Dungy has a personal/religious reason for that mindset, so be it. He's entitled to that. I just want to hear him say why he believes THIS "distraction" is the problem.
-
You are 100% correct. But in THIS CASE, for this individual (Dungy), he's claiming he wouldn't have drafted Sam d/t Sam being a "distraction." Yet he (Dungy) was more than willing to acquire/support other distractions in the past. So, I just want to know why. And, if it's because Sam is gay, and Dungy has a personal/religious reason for that mindset, so be it. He's entitled to that. I just want to hear him say why he believes THIS "distraction" is the problem.
You said it much better than I.
-
You are 100% correct. But in THIS CASE, for this individual (Dungy), he's claiming he wouldn't have drafted Sam d/t Sam being a "distraction." Yet he (Dungy) was more than willing to acquire/support other distractions in the past. So, I just want to know why. And, if it's because Sam is gay, and Dungy has a personal/religious reason for that mindset, so be it. He's entitled to that. I just want to hear him say why he believes THIS "distraction" is the problem.
I disagree as there are levels of distraction. He specifically said it was in response to the OWN (Oprah) 24/7 reality show nonsense that goes along with it. Other distractions (e.g. Michael Vick) didn't come with that same level of distraction all season long. Sure, Vick was a story and it got great coverage for a few weeks, but died out, press stopped paying attention. That's different than having a camera crew following one of your guys each and every week, constantly keeping things in the news. It's one of the reasons why HBO has to beg a team these days just to do Hard Knocks, it is too much of a distraction. IMO, he has said that THIS distraction is an issue tied to the level it was going to be played out.
-
Kluwe, Iverson and Owens are distractions because they intentionally distract.
Sam is a "distraction" because he is gay.
And because he makes a spectacle of it.
-
I disagree as there are levels of distraction. He specifically said it was in response to the OWN (Oprah) 24/7 reality show nonsense that goes along with it. Other distractions (e.g. Michael Vick) didn't come with that same level of distraction all season long. Sure, Vick was a story and it got great coverage for a few weeks, but died out, press stopped paying attention. That's different than having a camera crew following one of your guys each and every week, constantly keeping things in the news. It's one of the reasons why HBO has to beg a team these days just to do Hard Knocks, it is too much of a distraction. IMO, he has said that THIS distraction is an issue tied to the level it was going to be played out.
It appears Dungy's original comments were taken when the OWN show was to follow Sam around. Since Dungy's comments, that show has been cancelled and never seemed to have taken place at all. I would be curious, then, if, without the show, Dungy would have made the same comments. I'm guessing we'll never know.
Here's something, kinda weird though. Why did the Tampa Trib just publish these quotes now when they were supposedly back from the time right after Sam was drafted and when the OWN show was still scheduled? Media trying to stir things up? Probably. And the TT didn't even acknowledge that Dungy's original quotes came from back at that time.
-
It appears Dungy's original comments were taken when the OWN show was to follow Sam around. Since Dungy's comments, that show has been cancelled and never seemed to have taken place at all. I would be curious, then, if, without the show, Dungy would have made the same comments. I'm guessing we'll never know.
Here's something, kinda weird though. Why did the Tampa Trib just publish these quotes now when they were supposedly back from the time right after Sam was drafted and when the OWN show was still scheduled? Media trying to stir things up? Probably. And the TT didn't even acknowledge that Dungy's original quotes came from back at that time.
Considering my love for the media that is well known here, especially their ability to edit, take things out of context, leave entire quotes or passages out so the reader never knows......I'll say no more.
-
I disagree as there are levels of distraction. He specifically said it was in response to the OWN (Oprah) 24/7 reality show nonsense that goes along with it. Other distractions (e.g. Michael Vick) didn't come with that same level of distraction all season long. Sure, Vick was a story and it got great coverage for a few weeks, but died out, press stopped paying attention. That's different than having a camera crew following one of your guys each and every week, constantly keeping things in the news. It's one of the reasons why HBO has to beg a team these days just to do Hard Knocks, it is too much of a distraction. IMO, he has said that THIS distraction is an issue tied to the level it was going to be played out.
What did Dungy make a levels of distraction argument? Did he make an argument that the amount of distraction Sam would generate was not commensurate with the benefit or talent he would bring to a team? The answer to both is no, both are things he could have clarified in his follow-up statement, which he did not. Therefore he is a hypocrite
-
And because he makes a spectacle of it.
Yeah I know. Being openly gay is just so distracting.
-
kluwe, iverson and owens-ok, kind of. it's their personalities-i guess you could say they were born that way?
sam should not be distracting- he is gay. who really cares. it's the media. look what they did with tim tebow. tim tebow obviously wasn't very good. the media a real hard one for him. yes, i do know why. anyway, how many thousands of players don't make it in pro sports that you never hear a word about? but an 8th round draft pick-leave him alone. play ball
Well I don't disagree with that. I just don't think the media will be that much of a distraction.
-
Well I don't disagree with that. I just don't think the media will be that much of a distraction.
C'mon Sultan. I respect that you disagree with Dungy's opinion on this issue. You are one of the most thoughtful, even keeled posters on this site. I don't believe you're naïve enough to think that the media will not be a distraction with this story.
OWN wanted to follow a 7th round pick around camp. A 7th round pick. There are teams that don't want Hard Knocks in camp, and that is considered positive coverage. OWN following a 7th round pick looking for gotchas would be crazy.
I am glad Sam was drafted. I am glad he is afforded a chance to play in the NFL. I hope he makes it. I think that 50% of the population, and climbing, agrees with me.
-
And because he makes a spectacle of it.
He's not Charles Nelson Reilly.
-
He's not Charles Nelson Reilly.
This made me laugh.
-
C'mon Sultan. I respect that you disagree with Dungy's opinion on this issue. You are one of the most thoughtful, even keeled posters on this site. I don't believe you're naïve enough to think that the media will not be a distraction with this story.
OWN wanted to follow a 7th round pick around camp. A 7th round pick. There are teams that don't want Hard Knocks in camp, and that is considered positive coverage. OWN following a 7th round pick looking for gotchas would be crazy.
Jeff Fisher: ""Let's define distraction. There were a couple extra cameras during the early OTAs, there may have been an extra camera yesterday as the rookies reported and went on the field for the first time, but no, it's not (a distraction)"
Sam dropped the OWN idea. Very smart on his behalf. If he doesn't seek it out, and I don't think simply coming out and kissing your partner on television is seeking it out, I simply don't see it as much of anything.
This will be nothing like the Tebow stuff. The problem with Tebow is that there was an extreme disconnect between how good his supporters thought he could play, and how he could actually play. Being a quarterback was part of that issue. If Sam gets cut, or if he makes the team and still doesn't play much, I don't think that you will have legions of media wondering why.
-
C'mon Sultan. I respect that you disagree with Dungy's opinion on this issue. You are one of the most thoughtful, even keeled posters on this site. I don't believe you're naïve enough to think that the media will not be a distraction with this story.
OWN wanted to follow a 7th round pick around camp. A 7th round pick. There are teams that don't want Hard Knocks in camp, and that is considered positive coverage. OWN following a 7th round pick looking for gotchas would be crazy.
I am glad Sam was drafted. I am glad he is afforded a chance to play in the NFL. I hope he makes it. I think that 50% of the population, and climbing, agrees with me.
Let's be honest, the media distraction thing is mostly cooked up for fans, by fans as a talking point. I don't think there is a way to prove it empirically, but the number of outcomes impacted by "media distractions" has to be small, especially distractions that are entirely invented by the media.
Take the PSU scandal, that was a media distraction and outcomes were impacted but there was actual issues going on that the media was covering. If the media didn't cover that scandal and it wasn't a circus it absolutely still would have been a distraction. Michael Sam being gay is in of itself not a distraction(unless teammates have an issue with it), so the only component is a media element that the team can easily ignore.
It's us fans that get worked up about media distractions which just feeds the media animal further, it's a thermal runaway.
-
I was referring to the work that Dungy has done fighting against gay marriage.
It's interesting, though, that he never speaks out about actual criminals in the NFL - all of those arrested for assault or beating women over the last few years. I guess only the gays really bother this man.
This is a very good point.
How many times could Dungy have used his respected status to take stances on NFL-related issues that truly result in pain and suffering? Violence. Guns. PEDs. Whatever.
He has not had a problem advocating for second chances for the likes of Vick and other miscreants (a stance I agree with, BTW). He apparently didn't think they would be "distractions" for their teams.
But this issue is the one he decides to sink his teeth into.
My first post in this thread spoke about how different Dungy was from Sterling. And I still think he is. But I also have come to realize that Dungy has sounded like quite the hypocrite and weasel here.
He is a better human being than Donald Effin Sterling. It's reasonable to expect more from him.
-
Seriously, we have a league where Ray Rice gets a two game suspension for beating up his wife, complete with a recording of the incident.
And we are having a debate over whether or not Michael Sam will be a distraction?
-
Let's be honest, the media distraction thing is mostly cooked up for fans, by fans as a talking point. I don't think there is a way to prove it empirically, but the number of outcomes impacted by "media distractions" has to be small, especially distractions that are entirely invented by the media.
Take the PSU scandal, that was a media distraction and outcomes were impacted but there was actual issues going on that the media was covering. If the media didn't cover that scandal and it wasn't a circus it absolutely still would have been a distraction. Michael Sam being gay is in of itself not a distraction(unless teammates have an issue with it), so the only component is a media element that the team can easily ignore.
It's us fans that get worked up about media distractions which just feeds the media animal further, it's a thermal runaway.
Could not disagree more. As stated a few times, I handle the HBO relationship among others for my company. They have a hell of a time just getting a team to participate in Hard Knocks each year because of the distractions, and that instance would be very small compared to this. When you have a team trying to get ready for a season, making cuts, evaluating rosters, all the outside craziness, distractions need to be minimized. Having a reality show following around one of your players is a major distraction because of the circumstances around it. That's just one example, but overlaps nicely because it is football related.
Personally, I think the Rams are in a hell of a bind. Hopefully this kid plays lights out. He's a 7th rounder and many 7th rounders get cut. If the Rams cut him, you can bet your a$$ that there will be plenty of media stories questioning if one of the reasons was the locker room environment or playing on that angle. Some will drive it as the sole reason, others will do it as a "we'll never know, but did Sam's sexuality contribute to his dismissal". Then, of course, if he isn't picked up by another team that keeps the ball rolling.
For the Rams sake, I hope the kid knocks it out of the ballpark and makes it so obvious he should remain on the team that it becomes a no brainer.
One final note....glad to see some of the lefty sites the last two days pile on Dungy's son and his suicide. Awesome. Tolerance on display.
-
One final note....glad to see some of the lefty sites the last two days pile on Dungy's son and his suicide. Awesome. Tolerance on display.
So close....you were *so* close to making a nice, reasonable post. (Parts of which I disagree with, but reasonable nevertheless.)
And then you had to go on one of your tangents.... <sigh>
-
This is a very good point.
How many times could Dungy have used his respected status to take stances on NFL-related issues that truly result in pain and suffering? Violence. Guns. PEDs. Whatever.
He has, just because advocating for those things doesn't put you in the press 24/7 doesn't mean they aren't happening by him, because they are. He has advocated for such things for many years.
Did BrandX really say Dungy is fighting against gay marriage? LOL. It's all in the eye of the beholder. I suspect Dungy and others would say he was fighting FOR traditional marriage, one bound by Judeo Christian dogma, ethos, values, etc.
-
Could not disagree more. As stated a few times, I handle the HBO relationship among others for my company. They have a hell of a time just getting a team to participate in Hard Knocks each year because of the distractions, and that instance would be very small compared to this. When you have a team trying to get ready for a season, making cuts, evaluating rosters, all the outside craziness, distractions need to be minimized. Having a reality show following around one of your players is a major distraction because of the circumstances around it. That's just one example, but overlaps nicely because it is football related.
Personally, I think the Rams are in a hell of a bind. Hopefully this kid plays lights out. He's a 7th rounder and many 7th rounders get cut. If the Rams cut him, you can bet your a$$ that there will be plenty of media stories questioning if one of the reasons was the locker room environment or playing on that angle. Some will drive it as the sole reason, others will do it as a "we'll never know, but did Sam's sexuality contribute to his dismissal". Then, of course, if he isn't picked up by another team that keeps the ball rolling.
For the Rams sake, I hope the kid knocks it out of the ballpark and makes it so obvious he should remain on the team that it becomes a no brainer.
One final note....glad to see some of the lefty sites the last two days pile on Dungy's son and his suicide. Awesome. Tolerance on display.
Glad you found what you were looking for...
-
He has, just because advocating for those things doesn't put you in the press 24/7 doesn't mean they aren't happening by him, because they are. He has advocated for such things for many years.
Did BrandX really say Dungy is fighting against gay marriage? LOL. It's all in the eye of the beholder. I suspect Dungy and others would say he was fighting FOR traditional marriage, one bound by Judeo Christian dogma, ethos, values, etc.
Actually, it's bound by complete made-up bulls***. But, ya know, whatever works for you.
-
Nothing I enjoy more than reading how intolerant people are by the so called tolerant and seeing the "tolerant" in action.
It never disappoints, never. This guy calls them the tolerance brigade, I've dubbed them the tolerance lobby. Whatever, feel free to choose your descriptor, but some of these people probably are not smart enough to know the irony of their comments.
http://twitchy.com/2014/07/21/hateful-fck-tolerance-mob-lashes-out-at-tony-dungy-over-thoughts-on-michael-sam/
-
This is a very good point.
How many times could Dungy have used his respected status to take stances on NFL-related issues that truly result in pain and suffering? Violence. Guns. PEDs. Whatever.
He has not had a problem advocating for second chances for the likes of Vick and other miscreants (a stance I agree with, BTW). He apparently didn't think they would be "distractions" for their teams.
But this issue is the one he decides to sink his teeth into.
My first post in this thread spoke about how different Dungy was from Sterling. And I still think he is. But I also have come to realize that Dungy has sounded like quite the hypocrite and weasel here.
He is a better human being than Donald Effin Sterling. It's reasonable to expect more from him.
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.
-
Personally, I think the Rams are in a hell of a bind. Hopefully this kid plays lights out. He's a 7th rounder and many 7th rounders get cut. If the Rams cut him, you can bet your a$$ that there will be plenty of media stories questioning if one of the reasons was the locker room environment or playing on that angle. Some will drive it as the sole reason, others will do it as a "we'll never know, but did Sam's sexuality contribute to his dismissal". Then, of course, if he isn't picked up by another team that keeps the ball rolling.
For the Rams sake, I hope the kid knocks it out of the ballpark and makes it so obvious he should remain on the team that it becomes a no brainer.
You're not necessarily wrong, but nothing risked, nothing rewarded.
Eventually there will be a female majority owner, a female GM and a female head coach too. I'm sure there will be some weird scrutiny over those situations as well.
Don't let a vocal minority cloud your judgement.
People want Michael Sam to get a fair shot. That's it. If a some random media members go off the rails, so be it.
-
Could not disagree more. As stated a few times, I handle the HBO relationship among others for my company. They have a hell of a time just getting a team to participate in Hard Knocks each year because of the distractions, and that instance would be very small compared to this. When you have a team trying to get ready for a season, making cuts, evaluating rosters, all the outside craziness, distractions need to be minimized. Having a reality show following around one of your players is a major distraction because of the circumstances around it. That's just one example, but overlaps nicely because it is football related.
Personally, I think the Rams are in a hell of a bind. Hopefully this kid plays lights out. He's a 7th rounder and many 7th rounders get cut. If the Rams cut him, you can bet your a$$ that there will be plenty of media stories questioning if one of the reasons was the locker room environment or playing on that angle. Some will drive it as the sole reason, others will do it as a "we'll never know, but did Sam's sexuality contribute to his dismissal". Then, of course, if he isn't picked up by another team that keeps the ball rolling.
For the Rams sake, I hope the kid knocks it out of the ballpark and makes it so obvious he should remain on the team that it becomes a no brainer.
One final note....glad to see some of the lefty sites the last two days pile on Dungy's son and his suicide. Awesome. Tolerance on display.
I think he'll at least make the practice squad. Which is a success for a 7th round pick.
-
Nothing I enjoy more than reading how intolerant people are by the so called tolerant and seeing the "tolerant" in action.
It never disappoints, never. This guy calls them the tolerance brigade, I've dubbed them the tolerance lobby. Whatever, feel free to choose your descriptor, but some of these people probably are not smart enough to know the irony of their comments.
http://twitchy.com/2014/07/21/hateful-fck-tolerance-mob-lashes-out-at-tony-dungy-over-thoughts-on-michael-sam/
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.
-
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?
Twitter is a great litmus test for everything in life. I base most of my decisions and opinions upon the faceless masses that use 140 characters at a time.
-
He has, just because advocating for those things doesn't put you in the press 24/7 doesn't mean they aren't happening by him, because they are. He has advocated for such things for many years.
Did BrandX really say Dungy is fighting against gay marriage? LOL. It's all in the eye of the beholder. I suspect Dungy and others would say he was fighting FOR traditional marriage, one bound by Judeo Christian dogma, ethos, values, etc.
And inequality.
-
Nothing I enjoy more than reading how intolerant people are by the so called tolerant and seeing the "tolerant" in action.
It never disappoints, never. This guy calls them the tolerance brigade, I've dubbed them the tolerance lobby. Whatever, feel free to choose your descriptor, but some of these people probably are not smart enough to know the irony of their comments.
http://twitchy.com/2014/07/21/hateful-fck-tolerance-mob-lashes-out-at-tony-dungy-over-thoughts-on-michael-sam/
Wow. Earthshattering news. People are dicks on Twitter.
-
What did Dungy make a levels of distraction argument? Did he make an argument that the amount of distraction Sam would generate was not commensurate with the benefit or talent he would bring to a team? The answer to both is no, both are things he could have clarified in his follow-up statement, which he did not. Therefore he is a hypocrite
Clearly you are attacking this man because he is black and Christian
-
Actually, it's bound by complete made-up bulls***. But, ya know, whatever works for you.
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.
-
You're not necessarily wrong, but nothing risked, nothing rewarded.
Eventually there will be a female majority owner, a female GM and a female head coach too. I'm sure there will be some weird scrutiny over those situations as well.
Don't let a vocal minority cloud your judgement.
People want Michael Sam to get a fair shot. That's it. If a some random media members go off the rails, so be it.
There has already been a female owner in the NFL and female GM's in major sports.
Michael Sam is getting a fair shot, he was drafted by someone. What fairshot is he not getting? The problem with the fair shot argument is it can be flipped. Some might argue that some are getting MORE than a fair shot because it might be good PR or one might take up a roster position that isn't deserved because the fear of cutting said player brings about the same nonsense you just mentioned "he didn't get a fair shot". Of course these complaints will come from many media and special interest groups who didn't know what a football looked like 5 months ago, but whatever. ;)
-
Twitter is a great litmus test for everything in life. I base most of my decisions and opinions upon the faceless masses that use 140 characters at a time.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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. ;)
That's some gotcha BS.
White males are the most intolerant people.
I can point out A TON of historic and current examples. (Hooray for the internet!)
It doesn't make my hypothesis true.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
So I just invented my own religion. It says that all those from california are less than me. They need to be put into slavery and sold. Am I being intolerant of Californians? Or am I just being religious. Just because a religion says something doesn't make it not intolerance. It just means that a person has an excuse to be intolerant.
I hate to say it but I actually do agree with your basic argument of intolerance toward the intolerant make the tolerant hypocrites. However, that doesn't mean attempts at educating them and explaining to them what is tolerance can't happen. It just means that cursing them out and the like is the wrong path.
-
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.
Actually, "traditional" marriage for thousands of years meant polygamy. Religions don't own the concept of marriage.
-
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.
-
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.
Hey everyone, look! A moron.
EDIT: Sorry, I see your post below. I read your comment as "but in This world".... My Bad.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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!
-
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.
You guys realize that Lennys was talking about Dungy's POV and not his own right?
-
Actually, "traditional" marriage for thousands of years meant polygamy. Religions don't own the concept of marriage.
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.
-
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?
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.
-
Also, I don't have to be tolerant of bigoted people that try to legitimize discrimination. Sorry.
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.
-
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!
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.
-
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.
So Jeff Fisher is lying. Got it.
-
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.
The Bible evolving has a lot to do with translation. Greek and Aramaic to Latin etc., etc. There are English and Latin words and phrases that have no equivalent in Greek, so the translators have had to guess what was meant.
-
So Jeff Fisher is lying. Got it.
I am a Packer fan, ergo I hate the Bears, ergo I hate Jeff Fisher.
But.... through this mess, Jeff has shown how a real man should react. The comparison between Fisher and an intolerant liar like "don't distract me" Dungy is stunning.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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!
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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.
-
What? I thought Jesus, Rick Santorum and Tebow wrote it!!
And the Constitution....with Baby Jesus!
-
What's crazy is a significant % of folks believe this is for real.
(http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/12/19/4607c5dec4174333cd94112399b5aae0-jesus-with-a-dinosaur-6.jpg)
-
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
-
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!
-
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?
-
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?
-
http://creationmuseum.org/
-
What's crazy is a significant % of folks believe this is for real.
(http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/12/19/4607c5dec4174333cd94112399b5aae0-jesus-with-a-dinosaur-6.jpg)
Funny! When I was a kid, I never saw pictures of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
More or less to Ammos point earlier, you are letting some pre-cooked paradigm cloud an actual instance where Tony Dungy espoused a hypocritical (based on his own past actions embracing, except for sexual orientation, otherwise similarly "distracting" persons) opinion, and one that a reasonable person can infer was a thinly veiled homophobic remark. You are so enamored with pointing out other people's hypothetical ideological blind spots, you can't pick up on your own.
-
You are the King of the Hypothetical Situation.
When you change your screen name again, you should think about going with that.
just this topic and the whole board for that matter is an exercise in "tolerance". agree/disagree; points of view are made and people respond in agreement or disagreement. that is kind of what these venues are supposed to do, right? i find many here seem to have a real disdain for chicos points of view and are real quick to shoot him down, well, because it's chico. just because he may use the hypotheticals to drive his point home doesn't invalidate his arguments. is it the "hints" of conservatism that hits a nerve? ?-( oh, one more thing, tim tebow(came up earlier on this topic) was a media distraction because of his christianity, not his athletic prowess. tebow became espn's default news story on slow days. it got to the point where it became very obnoxious-like, just leave the guy alone obnoxious. hypothetical alert- now if he were islam and sucked, would they have run story after degrading story of him pulling out his prayer rug in an end zone celebration? umm, i'm going to go out on a limb and say negative. they(media) would have been made targets for a jihad as south park became. the football part was just the means by which the media used to pound on him. sure he sucked, but he sucked with dignity and didn't waver from his beliefs as he was constantly made fun of. they hated when he knelt down in the end zone and prayed. i think it made some in the media's eye's burn when he did that. they rather he did the atheist shuffle with a sharpie in his hand...tolerance. God bless ya'll ;D
-
just this topic and the whole board for that matter is an exercise in "tolerance". agree/disagree; points of view are made and people respond in agreement or disagreement. that is kind of what these venues are supposed to do, right? i find many here seem to have a real disdain for chicos points of view and are real quick to shoot him down, well, because it's chico. just because he may use the hypotheticals to drive his point home doesn't invalidate his arguments. is it the "hints" of conservatism that hits a nerve? ?-( oh, one more thing, tim tebow(came up earlier on this topic) was a media distraction because of his christianity, not his athletic prowess. tebow became espn's default news story on slow days. it got to the point where it became very obnoxious-like, just leave the guy alone obnoxious. hypothetical alert- now if he were islam and sucked, would they have run story after degrading story of him pulling out his prayer rug in an end zone celebration? umm, i'm going to go out on a limb and say negative. they(media) would have been made targets for a jihad as south park became. the football part was just the means by which the media used to pound on him. sure he sucked, but he sucked with dignity and didn't waver from his beliefs as he was constantly made fun of. they hated when he knelt down in the end zone and prayed. i think it made some in the media's eye's burn when he did that. they rather he did the atheist shuffle with a sharpie in his hand...tolerance. God bless ya'll ;D
In the age of every athlete thanking God for everything, pre and post game prayers, of players kneeling together, many sporting events singing the song God Bless America, you truly believe the media had on all assault of Tebow because of Christian beliefs?
-
In the age of every athlete thanking God for everything, pre and post game prayers, of players kneeling together, many sporting events singing the song God Bless America, you truly believe the media had on all assault of Tebow because of Christian beliefs?
Persecution complex.
Tebow was overhyped in part because his outward Christianity made him a very popular figure with a lot of people. As I said earlier, his popularity way outsized his actual ability to perform. I got tired of hearing about him, not cause of his religious beliefs, but because he wasn't very good.
-
There's a big difference between beliefs/opinions and what laws the government can/should write. That's all I'll say on the topic beyond Dungy's specifics.
-
On the Dungy matter, I'm with reinko, sultan, et al. Tony Dungy has a history of accomplishment, but that accomplishment would have been impossible if not for people willing to deal with "distractions" in an effort to make the NFL a meritocracy. That he would not be willing to return that favor to Michael Sam shows a hypocrisy and blind spot on his part. I think that is intolerance, and hiding behind "freedom of religion" doesn't change that. Chico and his supporters think that makes me intolerant. Maybe. If it's intolerant to call out Christians who think homosexuals are deviants or Muslims who think that wives are their husband's property, I plead unequivocally guilty.
The Tebow matter is different IMO - I find myself mostly with team Chico. Tebow is openly and devoutly Christian, but I've never heard him say anything even vaguely exclusionary, racist or homophobic. Sportswriters and talking heads like Boers and Bernstein don't hate him because he's another overrated Heisman trophy winning quarterback. The landscape is littered with them (Terry Baker, Gary Beban, John Huarte, Gino Torretta, Vince Young, etc. - the list is endless) and nobody gives or ever gave a crap. They hate him (listen to Boers and Bernstein - they really hate him) because he's unabashedly, joyfully Christian. And a white, southern Christian at that. For some, that's just too much "red meat" to resist.
-
On Dungy...
If his objection to Sam and his distraction was purely d/t the OWN following him around daily at practice, etc. I can somewhat buy into that (because Vick/Keyshawn didn't have the same daily attention interfering with team/individual activities, workouts, etc). If, however, Dungy's objection has anything to do with Sam's sexuality, then that is BS.
-
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.
No one is EVER requiring religions perform marriages that they are religiously against. EVER. This is such a dumb dumb fear. Making gay marriage legal does not mean that Catholicism is forced to perform gay marriages. What they are saying is that since the State recognizes marriage as a legal status, you cannot restrict a subset of our population from that legal right.
You do know there have some christian off-set religions marrying gay men and women for years now, right?
-
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.
It is when people advocate for a subset of our population to be denied a legal right that the rest of our population enjoys....and thinking that's right based on their prejudices. Not that hard, really.
And yes, religion has been bigoted for almost it's entire history. Where have you been? It has been good as well, but these are not mutually exclusive terms.
-
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....
Yeah....a "religious view" that comes from what they think is in the Bible.
-
You are the King of the Hypothetical Situation.
When you change your screen name again, you should think about going with that.
Deflection might be yours. Or, you could answer the question.
-
Yeah....a "religious view" that comes from what they think is in the Bible.
Is the Pope bigoted?
-
Is the Pope bigoted?
If he believes that gay people are not worthy or are sinners because they are gay, then yes. But I personally believe Francis knows better but can't say as much (though he's hinted at it). Do you even know what being a bigot is? It's not a hard concept/definition to grasp.
-
If he believes that gay people are not worthy or are sinners because they are gay, then yes. But I personally believe Francis knows better but can't say as much (though he's hinted at it). Do you even know what being a bigot is? It's not a hard concept/definition to grasp.
"I'm not a bigot! I just hate (fill in the blank)."
-
"I'm not a bigot! I just hate (fill in the blank)."
My response is always..."I'm not a bigot I hate everyone equally."
-
If he believes that gay people are not worthy or are sinners because they are gay, then yes. But I personally believe Francis knows better but can't say as much (though he's hinted at it). Do you even know what being a bigot is? It's not a hard concept/definition to grasp.
Do you know what the definition of tolerance is? Based on your answers throughout this thread, you do not and nor do most people who claim to be tolerant. That's the entire point. If the Pope or anyone else believes in something that is sourced in their religious views, that is somehow a diluted or misinformed viewpoint because of that source. In other words, religion isn't a good enough reason for many in the tolerant lobby, thus they aren't being tolerant at all in considering how other people view things or how they came to those views.
The action right now is to try and shame people for their views, especially those that are based on religion. It's a new McCarthyism which is ironic as hell. It's easy to do, simply call those of faith idiots or make statements that God isn't real, crazy, or whatever. It is being done daily and a religious viewpoint has been declared not applicable or worthy of consideration. It doesn't count. Intolerance of other people's views by deligitimizing religion as a whole.
-
No one is EVER requiring religions perform marriages that they are religiously against. EVER. This is such a dumb dumb fear. Making gay marriage legal does not mean that Catholicism is forced to perform gay marriages. What they are saying is that since the State recognizes marriage as a legal status, you cannot restrict a subset of our population from that legal right.
You do know there have some christian off-set religions marrying gay men and women for years now, right?
This...I've always struggled with understanding why there would be an objection to a religious marriage and a secular marriage. They are two very different things.
Religions can choose to do whatever they want with their marriage as it has no impact on a person's rights. A secular marriage(a marriage recognized by a government) is currently tied to economic repercussions (good and bad) which means the government is picking winners and losers.
-
More or less to Ammos point earlier, you are letting some pre-cooked paradigm cloud an actual instance where Tony Dungy espoused a hypocritical (based on his own past actions embracing, except for sexual orientation, otherwise similarly "distracting" persons) opinion, and one that a reasonable person can infer was a thinly veiled homophobic remark. You are so enamored with pointing out other people's hypothetical ideological blind spots, you can't pick up on your own.
What was hypocritical about his comments? In order for something to be hypocritical you have to compare equal or fairly equal situations. Sorry, but the analogy of Michael Vick and Sam are not the same, despite people wanting to make them so. One had a reality show in tow for the entire preseason and beyond, the other did not. That is a distraction which is exclusive to one situation which is why he stated it wasn't a distraction that was worth it.
-
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.
Please state where I implied you had something against islam. I said that the religion that was being protected from intolerance in that example was not the one you were likely hoping for as your argument comes from a biblical standpoint and the vast majority of people siding with your argument are christians.
Who gets to decide about properly informed? Well I thought the example was pretty obvious but since you're too stubborn to grasp it I'll dumb it down. Properly informed would be an opinion or belief after being presented with the facts. Like in my example with my teachers, they were not properly informed before the doctor came in, they were after. In an instance with homosexuality, it has been proven that A) sexuality is fluid in a lot of people, B) There are actual brain differences in what lights up in a brain scan, when they see an attractive man vs woman. After seeing these types of facts (just a couple), one would be properly informed. Or using the bible as evidence as to why traditional marriage needs to be protected, one would be properly informed after reading the traditional marriages mentioned.
I think after 5yrs at MU, and 11yrs at a catholic preschool-8th grade, I have done enough bible study that it is properly informed. However if you disagree that the bible is F'ed up then I invite you to have your daughter marry her rapist for 50 pieces of silver and see just how great you feel about that.
I work 7 days a week 11-9:30 so no I have not seen anything to do with defining words.
You ignored my statement about the establishment clause so please tell me why traditional marriage should be protected using religion as reasoning.
-
Is the Pope bigoted?
The current one or the last one? The current one who denounced trickle down economics, softened the church's stance on gay rights etc is not. The one who tried to make reading Harry Potter a sin well yes
-
No one is EVER requiring religions perform marriages that they are religiously against. EVER. This is such a dumb dumb fear. Making gay marriage legal does not mean that Catholicism is forced to perform gay marriages. What they are saying is that since the State recognizes marriage as a legal status, you cannot restrict a subset of our population from that legal right.
You do know there have some christian off-set religions marrying gay men and women for years now, right?
Ever? It was not long ago that Christian hospitals were NEVER EVER going to have to provide abortion pills. There is still a push by the ACLU and those within gov't to force Christian hospitals to provide abortions...we'll see where that lands, but don't kid yourself that this wasn't a major issue the last 5 years. Will it happen where religions will be forced to marry gay couples? Unlikely. Can it happen? No one knows.
Christian off-set religions? Yes, there are many groups that splinter off and do their own thing. Just as there are a number of "religions" that are self classified but not recognized which do all kinds of things. They may be right, they may be wrong. Personally, I believe it is up to them to do what they wish, but what I don't care for is why the tolerant lobby would overwhelmingly support those off-set religious groups but not other religious groups....except that they have a different viewpoint, and thus the tolerance of their viewpoints ends right there. Ironically.
-
Don't ever say ever...it was not long about that Christian hospitals were NEVER EVER going to have to provide abortion pills. There is still a push by the ACLU and those within gov't to force Christian hospitals to provide abortions...we'll see where that lands, but don't kid yourself that this wasn't a major issue the last 5 years. Will it happen where religions will be forced to marry gay couples? Unlikely. Can it happen? No one knows.
Christian off-set religions? Yes, there are many groups that splinter off and do their own thing. Just as there are a number of "religions" that are self classified but not recognized which do all kinds of things. They may be right, they may be wrong. Personally, I believe it is up to them to do what they wish, but what I don't care for is why the tolerant lobby would overwhelmingly support those off-set religious groups but not other religious groups....except that they have a different viewpoint, and thus the tolerance of their viewpoints ends right there. Ironically.
Oh. Dear. God. I won't even need to get into the fact that you don't what the f*** you're talking about on birth control. But let me say this. Your hospital is not a church. In many areas it is the ONLY hospital available and the only place for nurses and doctors. It is a place of work. If a religion wants to supply a service to a community, they cannot just make-up rules that go against the legal and medical rights of those they are serving. This is part of being a freaking hospital.
And christ you are ignorant. Birth control is a vital part female healthcare and denying access to a key part of your body's healthcare is denying rights. A woman's reproductive organs are a ridiculously important part of her overall healthcare. But you know better because your sexist religion which denies female viewpoints and participation said so? What's next for you? Denying blood transfusions is okay because they go against some religion?
Lastly, I cannot help but mock your (purposeful?) misunderstanding of how healthcare insurance works. For god's sake, they're not being forced to give it to them personally.
-
The current one or the last one? The current one who denounced trickle down economics, softened the church's stance on gay rights etc is not. The one who tried to make reading Harry Potter a sin well yes
In YOUR view, and if he doesn't share your view he must be a bigot.
Even if his beliefs are sourced from religious views, and that's the issue. The tolerant lobby apparently gets to decide definitions and moves the goal posts accordingly. On top of their criteria, the religious viewpoints carry little weight at all with them, thus the irony of tolerance to begin with. Religious viewpoints don't count, or count very little thus tolerance of other peoples views when those views are grounded in religion is diluted by the so called tolerant brigade. If you can't see that hypocrisy I can't help you.
-
Quick recap on what the Bible says traditional marriage is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
-
In YOUR view, and if he doesn't share your view he must be a bigot.
Even if his beliefs are sourced from religious views, and that's the issue. The tolerant lobby apparently gets to decide definitions and moves the goal posts accordingly. On top of their criteria, the religious viewpoints carry little weight at all with them, thus the irony of tolerance to begin with. Religious viewpoints don't count, or count very little thus tolerance of other peoples views when those views are grounded in religion is diluted by the so called tolerant brigade. If you can't see that hypocrisy I can't help you.
Well quite frankly if someone is picking and choosing from their religion particularly the intolerant parts instead of say "love thy neighbor" then why should they be repaid with tolerance? If a person used religious grounds to focus on say "love thy neighbor" I'm confident you'd get an entirely different reaction.
-
In YOUR view, and if he doesn't share your view he must be a bigot.
Even if his beliefs are sourced from religious views, and that's the issue. The tolerant lobby apparently gets to decide definitions and moves the goal posts accordingly. On top of their criteria, the religious viewpoints carry little weight at all with them, thus the irony of tolerance to begin with. Religious viewpoints don't count, or count very little thus tolerance of other peoples views when those views are grounded in religion is diluted by the so called tolerant brigade. If you can't see that hypocrisy I can't help you.
big·ot [big-uht]: the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
Not. That. Hard. Oh, and don't go down the rabbit hole of a "you're a bigot because you called someone a bigot,"...cause I know you will smh.
-
Oh. Dear. God. I won't even need to get into the fact that you don't what the f*** you're talking about on birth control. But let me say this. Your hospital is not a church. In many areas it is the ONLY hospital available and the only place for nurses and doctors. It is a place of work. If a religion wants to supply a service to a community, they cannot just make-up rules that go against the legal and medical rights of those they are serving. This is part of being a freaking hospital.
And christ you are ignorant. Birth control is a vital part female healthcare and denying access to a key part of your body's healthcare is denying rights. A woman's reproductive organs are a ridiculously important part of her overall healthcare. But you know better because your sexist religion which denies female viewpoints and participation said so? What's next for you? Denying blood transfusions is okay because they go against some religion?
Lastly, I cannot help but mock your (purposeful?) misunderstanding of how healthcare insurance works. For god's sake, they're not being forced to give it to them personally.
This is a classic response and exactly what I have been talking about this entire thread. Their views of what they should be providing as a Christian hospital don't count. You couldn't have displayed it any better. Their moral views, their religious views are trumped. Then you throw in the "sexist religion" remark, tolerance abounds. Don't forget redneck next time...usually a favorite of the highly tolerant. LOL.
I think it would be wise to go back read how the most current law came to pass and what fixes had to be put in to prevent the very thing you are talking about, otherwise "for God's sake" it would have happened. That was the intent, smarter people were able to cut it off at the pass, but that doesn't mean it isn't coming in the future.
There's a reason why a number of private hospitals have sued based on the current law, they don't arrive at the same conclusion you do. Then again, they're just a bunch of bumbling people that believe the world started 6,000 years ago and sexist, redneck, Jesus freaks (oh, and Homophobes, too).
-
Quick recap on what the Bible says traditional marriage is.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OFkeKKszXTw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Fail. Try again.
-
Well quite frankly if someone is picking and choosing from their religion particularly the intolerant parts instead of say "love thy neighbor" then why should they be repaid with tolerance? If a person used religious grounds to focus on say "love thy neighbor" I'm confident you'd get an entirely different reaction.
Exactly the same argument against the tolerance brigade. EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT.
Think about it for a second.
-
Fail. Try again.
Modified :)
-
big·ot [big-uht]: the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
Not. That. Hard. Oh, and don't go down the rabbit hole of a "you're a bigot because you called someone a bigot,"...cause I know you will smh.
I wouldn't go down that lame argument straw man you proposed, no need...even if you believe in your mind that I would...you're wrong.
I would suggest you look at the definition you provided and concentrate on some of the attributes toward the end of it. Based on your very definition above around someone's religious views, and thus the irony in all of this. You've outlined several times in this thread as have others about religion, or the views of others that are SOURCED in religion. You've proved nicely what I've said all along about tolerance and bigotry. Question is, can you use your definition above and apply it to your beliefs and words in this very thread to connect the dots and expose the hypocrisy? My sense is, no....and the reason is simple as it has always been when it comes to tolerance and bigotry. Those that scream from the rooftops how intolerant or bigoted others may be don't do a very good job of understand the very bigotry they espouse about others when doing it. The very attributes in that definition that they don't like, they don't agree with and yet they use them to help define who is intolerant.
The irony is magically delicious.
-
This is a classic response and exactly what I have been talking about this entire thread. Their views of what they should be providing as a Christian hospital don't count. You couldn't have displayed it any better. Their moral views, their religious views are trumped. Then you throw in the "sexist religion" remark, tolerance abounds. Don't forget redneck next time...usually a favorite of the highly tolerant. LOL.
I think it would be wise to go back read how the most current law came to pass and what fixes had to be put in to prevent the very thing you are talking about, otherwise "for God's sake" it would have happened. That was the intent, smarter people were able to cut it off at the pass, but that doesn't mean it isn't coming in the future.
There's a reason why a number of private hospitals have sued based on the current law, they don't arrive at the same conclusion you do. Then again, they're just a bunch of bumbling people that believe the world started 6,000 years ago and sexist, redneck, Jesus freaks (oh, and Homophobes, too).
You're a hospital. Not a "Christian" hospital. You want all the legal tax breaks and profits from publicly-traded insurance companies and grants from the State and payments from public and private sector workers, then you act like a hospital that doesn't discriminate. Deal. Additionally, all these hospitals were providing birth control to employees way before this scary Obamacare started. It's amazing how many of them suddenly "object" to it now.
Please try to argue that Christianity (the religion) is not sexist. Go ahead. Try it. I dare you.
The problems with these "beliefs" is that they're factually incorrect. I don't need your opinions on facts.
Calling something sexist or racist does not make me "intolerant." You're literally arguing we should never point out when someone is a bigot because....the word sounds mean?
-
Modified :)
I'll take a look a little later, heading off to Comic Con with HBO. Doing a Game of Thrones experience and then a Big Bang Theory panel in a few hours. I look forward to watching, however.
-
I wouldn't go down that lame argument straw man you proposed, no need...even if you believe in your mind that I would...you're wrong.
I would suggest you look at the definition you provided and concentrate on some of the attributes toward the end of it. Based on your very definition above around someone's religious views, and thus the irony in all of this. You've outlined several times in this thread as have others about religion, or the views of others that are SOURCED in religion. You've proved nicely what I've said all along about tolerance and bigotry. Question is, can you use your definition above and apply it to your beliefs and words in this very thread to connect the dots and expose the hypocrisy? My sense is, no....and the reason is simple as it has always been when it comes to tolerance and bigotry. Those that scream from the rooftops how intolerant or bigoted others may be don't do a very good job of understand the very bigotry they espouse about others when doing it. The very attributes in that definition that they don't like, they don't agree with and yet they use them to help define who is intolerant.
The irony is magically delicious.
God you're dense. When I'm talking about the "religions" I'm actually specifically talking about THEIR attitudes and treatments of other groups and people. "Views" are not groups.
-
Exactly the same argument against the tolerance brigade. EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT.
Think about it for a second.
Wait so your saying that because a group of people don't put up with views that treat others unfairly they aren't loving thy neighbor? I'm not sure I follow your logic. I agree that people are wayyy to mean to your type of person and that only affirms views that treat others such as gays and women unfairly. However, to say that because the "tolerance brigade" is fighting to allow homosexuals and women the same legal rights (not infringing on religion) as straight men is somehow intolerant I fail to see the logic in that regard. Perhaps you can better explain it without catchy fox news terms so I don't get distracted?
-
I'll take a look a little later, heading off to Comic Con with HBO. Doing a Game of Thrones experience and then a Big Bang Theory panel in a few hours. I look forward to watching, however.
Cool, my boss is mad at me for too much time on here so we'll head back to our corners and come out at the bell.
-
God you're dense. When I'm talking about the "religions" I'm actually specifically talking about their attitudes and treatments of other groups and people. "Views" are not groups.
Yup, and those attitudes and treatments are religiously sourced. Again, use your definition.
This. Is. Not. Hard.
LOL
-
Wait so your saying that because a group of people don't put up with views that treat others unfairly they aren't loving thy neighbor? I'm not sure I follow your logic. I agree that people are wayyy to mean to your type of person and that only affirms views that treat others such as gays and women unfairly. However, to say that because the "tolerance brigade" is fighting to allow homosexuals and women the same legal rights (not infringing on religion) as straight men is somehow intolerant I fail to see the logic in that regard. Perhaps you can better explain it without catchy fox news terms so I don't get distracted?
The tolerance brigade on one front is fighting for those rights while at the same time showing intolerance to others that have differing viewpoints based on religion. Yet, according to the very definition of tolerance, that shouldn't be happening.
Sorry, the Fox News thing I don't get since I don't watch Fox News very often, but even right there you show your "tolerance" for people that may watch Fox News. Again, the irony....it just keeps on giving. You don't like views from Fox News or people that espouse them, thus you are not tolerant of those views. Magically. Delicious.
-
Yup, and those attitudes and treatments are religiously sourced. Again, use your definition.
This. Is. Not. Hard.
LOL
Please tell me how I have treated Christians (as a Catholic my whole life) in a discriminatory manner. Please.
Your "treatments" of other people are not protected because they are "religiously sourced." This is how it became religiously acceptable to defend slavery and keep interracial marriage illegal.
Do you see the difference? Keeping people as slaves vs. the opinion that that is terrible. One is actually affecting someone.
-
Deflection might be yours. Or, you could answer the question.
I don't like going back-and-forth about hypothetical situations.
You love the whole "If Vander doesn't hit that shot and we lose to Davidson ... " discussion. I happen to dislike it, because he did hit the shot and we didn't lose so discussing the repercussions of what would have happened had what happened not happened is just a waste of time.
The same is true of the question you asked me in this discussion, too. I'm not interested in debating a non-happening.
I'm not "against" you, Chicos. And I don't know you well enough to either like or dislike you. You're just a knucklehead on a fan site - as am I!
I disagree with you sometimes and agree with you sometimes. You and I have different politics (I am a registered Independent) and different religions (I am a non-practicing Jew), so we naturally will disagree on many topics, especially those that stray from the basketball arena.
And you are very aggressive and confident when it comes to stating your points of view, so you tend to rehash things over and over and over again, and you rarely admit that it is even possible that there is a 1% chance that you just might be wrong. That also makes me less likely to want to continue a discussion.
Despite your sometimes abrasive style, I don't have you on "ignore" - only willie has that distinct honor with me - because you are a smart guy who often has thought-provoking comments, and I like that. But I defend my right to not be party to your hypotheticals or badgered by your politics! So there.
I look forward to future reasoned conversations, but I'm done with you on this debate.
Cheers!
-
Please try to argue that Christianity (the religion) is not sexist. Go ahead. Try it. I dare you.
Of course Christianity is sexist, or at least some of its branches are. So are the other big religions.
My brother is an Orthodox Jew. His wife is an extremely outspoken, confident woman; if you talked with her for 10 minutes about any subject, you might even think she's a women's libber. Yet she willingly belongs to a religion that makes her sit in the back of the synagogue and makes her ineligible to take an active part in services. So she has chosen to be discriminated against - and I don't think that's what is meant by the Chosen People!
And let's not even start about the sexism in Islam.
-
In the age of every athlete thanking God for everything, pre and post game prayers, of players kneeling together, many sporting events singing the song God Bless America, you truly believe the media had on all assault of Tebow because of Christian beliefs?
the short answer is....yup. check out wikipedia. the very 2nd sentence states-"he received considerable press attention for his public displays of...wait for it...RELIGIOUS FAITH..." then the side story was that as a heisman trophy winner, a very successful college career and a 1st round nfl pick(25th), he struggled in the nfl and to be very honest with you, i don't know where he is with regards to football. wikepedia isn't really known for a right wing bias. as a matter of fact, many articles have been written on wikipedia being a little left leaning at times
-
In YOUR view, and if he doesn't share your view he must be a bigot.
Even if his beliefs are sourced from religious views, and that's the issue. The tolerant lobby apparently gets to decide definitions and moves the goal posts accordingly. On top of their criteria, the religious viewpoints carry little weight at all with them, thus the irony of tolerance to begin with. Religious viewpoints don't count, or count very little thus tolerance of other peoples views when those views are grounded in religion is diluted by the so called tolerant brigade. If you can't see that hypocrisy I can't help you.
Let me get this straight. You're tolerant because you don't call something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck a duck unless the duck says it's ok to call him a duck. I don't wait for the duck's permission, so I'm intolerant. Fine, but the misogyny that some Muslims practice "based on their religious viewpoints" and the homophobia that some Muslims and Christians practice "based on their religious viewpoints" aren't any more acceptable to me than they would be if it was based on atheistic or totalitarian viewpoints. In your "tolerant" world, Sharia Law would be legitimate, something to be tolerated. No thanks.
-
Of course Christianity is sexist, or at least some of its branches are. So are the other big religions.
My brother is an Orthodox Jew. His wife is an extremely outspoken, confident woman; if you talked with her for 10 minutes about any subject, you might even think she's a women's libber. Yet she willingly belongs to a religion that makes her sit in the back of the synagogue and makes her ineligible to take an active part in services. So she has chosen to be discriminated against - and I don't think that's what is meant by the Chosen People!
And let's not even start about the sexism in Islam.
It was a response to Chicos, on a specific comment. Of course all the Abrahamic religions are exceedingly sexist.
-
what was this thread about again?
-
I'll take a look a little later, heading off to Comic Con with HBO. Doing a Game of Thrones experience and then a Big Bang Theory panel in a few hours. I look forward to watching, however.
you are connected to "the big bang theory"? that is the only sit-com i really watch next to "the league" and maybe come seinfeld reruns. but but but...that's cool! the character development is f'ing unbelievably genius and 2nd to not many
-
what was this thread about again?
Rabble Rabble?
(http://media.tumblr.com/dd341c9ab4781ec64c940713a1a7673b/tumblr_inline_mn2c2wuCX71qz4rgp.gif)
-
what was this thread about again?
What % of the threads could this be posted in? 10%? 60%? 90%?
-
what was this thread about again?
so what, this is incredibly enlightening and entertaining ;D let's just say it has evolved
-
what was this thread about again?
Given the original subject matter of the thread, it stayed on the rails for far longer than I expected!
-
Why can't we all just be friends, hey?
-
The tolerance brigade on one front is fighting for those rights while at the same time showing intolerance to others that have differing viewpoints based on religion. Yet, according to the very definition of tolerance, that shouldn't be happening.
Sorry, the Fox News thing I don't get since I don't watch Fox News very often, but even right there you show your "tolerance" for people that may watch Fox News. Again, the irony....it just keeps on giving. You don't like views from Fox News or people that espouse them, thus you are not tolerant of those views. Magically. Delicious.
But you said it yourself "fighting" in fighting you choose a side and fight for the cause, the cause is tolerance and because it is a fight there is an enemy the enemy is intolerance and if someone embodies intolerant philosophies then what have they done to earn tolerance themselves? In Christianity the golden rule is treat others the way I wish to be treated so in essence we are following your religion by being intolerant of intolerant views.
Tolerance brigade just sounded like a term you would have gotten from there. How did I show my intolerance for people who watch fox news? By asking you not to use those distracting terms? That doesn't seem intolerant it seems like me expressing that I'm easily distracted (MUScoop at work). You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me based off of the fact that I said I was distracted. I'm sure you being you you'll stubbornly deny it but we both know in our hearts it's true.
Also "magically delicious"? I'm not sure if you're trying to come off like a creepy version of the lucky charms guy but well you succeeded.
-
Who is the "intolerance brigade", and where can I sign up?
I'm Catholic, so can I still be a member? Oh, and I'm mostly white, if that matters.
-
Not sure I should even go here but
Why is it that a coach using a homophobic slur (words) gets a 3 game suspension and
Ray Rice gets a 2 game suspension for beating the hell (physical harm) out of his fiancé?
Again: I am for totally equal treatment for homosexuals and hope Michael Sam has a long successful career in the NFL.
-
Not sure I should even go here but
Why is it fair that a coach using a homophobic slur (words) gets a 3 game suspension and
Ray Rice gets a 2 game suspension for beating the hell (physical harm) out of his fiancé?
Again: I am for totally equal treatment for homosexuals and hope Michael Sam has a long successful career in the NFL.
You're right. It's not fair in the least.
-
You're right. It's not fair in the least.
Fair is not what I was asking. My bad.
I will amend my question. Why is it right?
-
Not sure I should even go here but
Why is it that a coach using a homophobic slur (words) gets a 3 game suspension and
Ray Rice gets a 2 game suspension for beating the hell (physical harm) out of his fiancé?
Again: I am for totally equal treatment for homosexuals and hope Michael Sam has a long successful career in the NFL.
You can also throw in possession of a plant, 4 game suspension.
-
Fair is not what I was asking. My bad.
I will amend my question. Why is it right?
It's not fair or right. It's absurd.
I think Kluwe is suing everybody in sight. Maybe that has something to do with it.
-
You can also throw in possession of a plant, 4 game suspension.
Possession of an illegal substance. It's currently federal la. He wasn't holding on to a pine tree. Difference
-
Fair is not what I was asking. My bad.
I will amend my question. Why is it right?
It's not.
-
Am I the only one that no longer has any idea what CBB's stance is on any of the issues in this thread???
-
Not sure I should even go here but
Why is it that a coach using a homophobic slur (words) gets a 3 game suspension and
Ray Rice gets a 2 game suspension for beating the hell (physical harm) out of his fiancé?
Again: I am for totally equal treatment for homosexuals and hope Michael Sam has a long successful career in the NFL.
It's ain't right.
-
Am I the only one that no longer has any idea what CBB's stance is on any of the issues in this thread???
His stance is as follows:
People who feel that homosexuals are an aberrant abomination or that a husband can order his raped wife to be stoned to death are not homophobic or misogynistic as long as they base those feelings on religious beliefs. Nor are they intolerant. The intolerant ones are those who object to those feelings.
-
His stance is as follows:
People who feel that homosexuals are an aberrant abomination or that a husband can order his raped wife to be stoned to death are not homophobic or misogynistic as long as they base those feelings on religious beliefs. Nor are they intolerant. The intolerant ones are those who object to those feelings.
Lenny, your dislike for Chicos has hit a low. He his bombastic and has points of view that I disagree with often enough. There is enough to argue with Chicos about without making it up.
-
Lenny, your dislike for Chicos has hit a low. He his bombastic and has points of view that I disagree with often enough. There is enough to argue with Chicos about without making it up.
Can't tell if this sarcastic or not. But I thought Lenny was pretty spot on with what ive surmised from Chicos so far
-
Can't tell if this sarcastic or not. But I thought Lenny was pretty spot on with what ive surmised from Chicos so far
You would.
-
Lenny, your dislike for Chicos has hit a low. He his bombastic and has points of view that I disagree with often enough. There is enough to argue with Chicos about without making it up.
I think this was part of Golden's point earlier. CBB just wants to argue with everyone. Even when you agree with him, he will still argue.
-
the short answer is....yup. check out wikipedia. the very 2nd sentence states-"he received considerable press attention for his public displays of...wait for it...RELIGIOUS FAITH..." then the side story was that as a heisman trophy winner, a very successful college career and a 1st round nfl pick(25th), he struggled in the nfl and to be very honest with you, i don't know where he is with regards to football. wikepedia isn't really known for a right wing bias. as a matter of fact, many articles have been written on wikipedia being a little left leaning at times
Surgeon, - the whole Tebow thing reminds me of the Vietnam War. We obviously couldn't go to war with the USSR since we both have nuclear weapons. So we fought a proxy war in Vietnam.
The Tebow thing was a proxy war for the left and the right (religious conservatives) to battle it out - it had nothing to do with football.
I have met and talked with Tebow and have nothing but respect for him. He really is a good human being. But because he was a christian, the right latched onto him as the greatest football player in the history of the world (disregarding the fact that people have eyes). Not to be outdone by stupidity, the left then went after Tebow.
Most people, I think, were just disgusted by the whole thing. Both the fact that he was overrated solely because of his religion and that a bad football player was getting so much attention.
-
You would.
I know that's what I said. Was reiterating that really worth a post?
-
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.
You tend to like this argument a lot, but IMO it is a poor argument. When someone comes out and says they wouldn't employ a person because they are homosexual…they are a bigot. If the reasoning is, because of religious reasons, they are a fundamentalist. Those are facts. Calling them that has nothing to do with discrimination or tolerance.
They were entitled to their opinion, they will be criticized accordingly and have no protection under the 1st amendment to repercussions to their employment.
Now, equivalently, if instead of stating that they would not employ them, they had said something like…that person is a homosexual…they have relationships with the same sex. No one would have criticized them…again those are stating facts…they went derogatory so they are criticized.
Similarly:
That person is of African American decent, or his skin is darker than the average person…perfectly ok.
That person is a N-word…not ok…subject to criticism. You say this…by definition you are a racist…that doesn't mean someone that says that is throwing their tolerance out the window.
That person is an intolerant christian fundamentalist….perfectly ok.
(I don't think there is an equivalent…but I'm sure there is…maybe something like they are a religious nut job…not ok/offensive).
You are trying to create arguments that have no merit.
-
In the age of every athlete thanking God for everything, pre and post game prayers, of players kneeling together, many sporting events singing the song God Bless America, you truly believe the media had on all assault of Tebow because of Christian beliefs?
This does a nice job
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/04/30/tim-tebow-jason-collins-and-the-medias-gay-christian-double-standard
(http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/bee5314/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F7f%2Ff504e0d8d949f94b1162080ee1dc65%2F41199EC_130501_stantis.jpg)
-
Lenny, your dislike for Chicos has hit a low. He his bombastic and has points of view that I disagree with often enough. There is enough to argue with Chicos about without making it up.
MU - if Chico is consistent in his logic my examples are accurate. Retread what he's written.
-
Of course Christianity is sexist, or at least some of its branches are. So are the other big religions.
My brother is an Orthodox Jew. His wife is an extremely outspoken, confident woman; if you talked with her for 10 minutes about any subject, you might even think she's a women's libber. Yet she willingly belongs to a religion that makes her sit in the back of the synagogue and makes her ineligible to take an active part in services. So she has chosen to be discriminated against - and I don't think that's what is meant by the Chosen People!
And let's not even start about the sexism in Islam.
Sexist? Or based on theology and religious dogma? Here again, your view of sexism trumps their view of religion. You're placing higher value of one over the other, when the very definition of tolerance is supposed to include religious views as one core principle.
See, not so easy, but you and others (myself included) make value judgments based on our own belief systems. When we do that, we are bigoted, intolerant, etc, ourselves because we are no longer applying a standard of intolerance.
-
You're a hospital. Not a "Christian" hospital. You want all the legal tax breaks and profits from publicly-traded insurance companies and grants from the State and payments from public and private sector workers, then you act like a hospital that doesn't discriminate. Deal. Additionally, all these hospitals were providing birth control to employees way before this scary Obamacare started. It's amazing how many of them suddenly "object" to it now.
Please try to argue that Christianity (the religion) is not sexist. Go ahead. Try it. I dare you.
The problems with these "beliefs" is that they're factually incorrect. I don't need your opinions on facts.
Calling something sexist or racist does not make me "intolerant." You're literally arguing we should never point out when someone is a bigot because....the word sounds mean?
Actually, it is a hospital with a Christian source, run privately with the intent to be a hospital but also one that operates on religious ideals. You may not like that, but that is why so man sued. Their existence is rooted in their religious beliefs and is material to their entire mission.
Let's cut to the chase, what I'm arguing is the BS nonsense from people who claim to be tolerant and preach how intolerant others are, when in fact there is no such thing. Everyone is intolerant to some degree and there is bigotry every bit as much from the so called bigot free folks. It usually stems against religious views, political views, etc, but it is there in spades and it floors me that in your own definition that you provided you cannot see that. FLOORS ME.
Finally, as for the Church being sexist, again based on what? Your views. In the church's views men were supposed to be in certain positions as priests, etc. You can call that sexist all you want, but that practice is rooted in theology which you are intolerant of. Your sexist belief trumps the church's religious or theological beliefs...just ANOTHER example in this thread of the double standard which you and others here have fallen into that trap repeatedly.
-
Let me get this straight. You're tolerant because you don't call something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck a duck unless the duck says it's ok to call him a duck. I don't wait for the duck's permission, so I'm intolerant. Fine, but the misogyny that some Muslims practice "based on their religious viewpoints" and the homophobia that some Muslims and Christians practice "based on their religious viewpoints" aren't any more acceptable to me than they would be if it was based on atheistic or totalitarian viewpoints. In your "tolerant" world, Sharia Law would be legitimate, something to be tolerated. No thanks.
LOL
Based on this post and about 3 or 4 others in this thread, you clearly haven't read a word I have said.
First of all, I have not said I am tolerant. That is my whole point. I'm not tolerant, I have biases and beliefs about certain things. What I'm driving home is that others here claiming to be tolerant are just as intolerant under the definition of tolerance, the definition of bigotry, etc. Your example in this very thread shows that to be the case. If religious views are part of the definition of being tolerant and you are saying "no thanks", then you aren't being tolerant.
That's ok, because I think that is reality and also what I've been saying this entire thread. What gets me wound up is all the supposed holier than thou folks who claim to be tolerant, throw out definitions and then violate the VERY DEFINITIONS they throw out.
So stop claiming you are tolerant, because you aren't. Just as you said, no thanks. You aren't tolerant Lenny...which is fine. Neither is MU82, neither is anyone else on this thread or anywhere else. So stop shoving it down people's throats how tolerant you are, because no one is. What troubles many people when we read this tolerant lobby bullshyte proclamations is their own violations of the very nonsense they proclaim to uphold and often don't even have the mental capacity to realize their own intolerant actions.
Thus, the irony remains magically delicious. We're all intolerant to some extent, because we let our own biases and worldly views enter our thought processes. You do your best, you act within the law, you try to be fair. That is what a normal person would do. It is when the "tolerant" among us tells everyone else how intolerant everyone else is that rubs folks wrong, especially when they are intellectually dishonest from the get go.
-
Another Chicos strawman argument....
How many people here "claimed to be tolerant?" He's the one that goes on and on about the "tolerance lobby," but HE'S the one that brought it up in the first place.
This is so typical. He makes sh*t up just so he can make a point.
-
His stance is as follows:
People who feel that homosexuals are an aberrant abomination or that a husband can order his raped wife to be stoned to death are not homophobic or misogynistic as long as they base those feelings on religious beliefs. Nor are they intolerant. The intolerant ones are those who object to those feelings.
It is amazing as a supposedly educated man how you keep missing the point, and now you take it to an extreme you know isn't the case.
ALL OF THEM ARE INTOLERANT, that's entirely the point. You, me, everyone else. And you can bet your bottom dollar the a-holes claiming to be the morally superior super tolerant are, in fact, the most INTOLERANT of the bunch. Simply because by THEIR very definition of tolerance which includes religious views, etc, they ignore them completely and minimalize them.
Do I support stoning of a woman that was raped? Of course not. Do I think homosexuals are abhorrent to society? Of course not. Do I acknowledge that there are religious views that say marriage is between a man and a woman? Yes. Does that make them right? Who knows, but I acknowledge those views exist and do not dismiss them out of hand. Maybe someday we will all be judged or not judged, depending on what is real or not. No one knows. What I do know is that I acknowledge that people do have legitimate views grounded in religious viewpoints, while the super tolerant among us dismiss those views out of hand, DESPITE the very notion of tolerant behavior espouses to be.
Really. Not. Hard.
-
LOL
Based on this post and about 3 or 4 others in this thread, you clearly haven't read a word I have said.
First of all, I have not said I am tolerant. That is my whole point. I'm not tolerant, I have biases and beliefs about certain things. What I'm driving home is that others here claiming to be tolerant are just as intolerant under the definition of tolerance, the definition of bigotry, etc. Your example in this very thread shows that to be the case. If religious views are part of the definition of being tolerant and you are saying "no thanks", then you aren't being tolerant.
That's ok, because I think that is reality and also what I've been saying this entire thread. What gets me wound up is all the supposed holier than thou folks who claim to be tolerant, throw out definitions and then violate the VERY DEFINITIONS they throw out.
So stop claiming you are tolerant, because you aren't. Just as you said, no thanks. You aren't tolerant Lenny...which is fine. Neither is MU82, neither is anyone else on this thread or anywhere else. So stop shoving it down people's throats how tolerant you are, because no one is. What troubles many people when we read this tolerant lobby bullshyte is that it is 100% bullshyte but these people proclaiming to be all tolerant don't even have the mental capacity to realize their own intolerance.
Thus, the irony remains magically delicious.
Tolerance is realizing that everyone has their beliefs and biases, but refusing to let them interrupt the ability for others to live their life without additional hurdles.
For instance, if Dungy had said, I'm a Christian, I don't believe in homosexual activity or marriage, but they are free to partake in both those activities and I would be happy to have Sam on my time, because they are entitled to their own beliefs…no problem, neither interferes with their ability to live their lives.
But when you try to restrict peoples activities based on their beliefs, there is intolerance.
-
you are connected to "the big bang theory"? that is the only sit-com i really watch next to "the league" and maybe come seinfeld reruns. but but but...that's cool! the character development is f'ing unbelievably genius and 2nd to not many
No. Great show, here on the television side but have nothing to do with the creation of it.
-
Tolerance is realizing that everyone has their beliefs and biases, but refusing to let them interrupt the ability for others to live their life without additional hurdles.
For instance, if Dungy had said, I'm a Christian, I don't believe in homosexual activity or marriage, but they are free to partake in both those activities and I would be happy to have Sam on my time, because they are entitled to their own beliefs…no problem, neither interferes with their ability to live their lives.
But when you try to restrict peoples activities based on their beliefs, there is intolerance.
tony d isn't restricting anyones activities. sam and the media are restricting/narrowing sam's choices. if sam is good, he'll write his own ticket. peoples behavior will put limitations on their options. drinking, pot smoking, chris kluweisms... tony just said what many others were thinking. if you don't believe that, you aren't being honest with yourslf
-
Tolerance is realizing that everyone has their beliefs and biases, but refusing to let them interrupt the ability for others to live their life without additional hurdles.
For instance, if Dungy had said, I'm a Christian, I don't believe in homosexual activity or marriage, but they are free to partake in both those activities and I would be happy to have Sam on my time, because they are entitled to their own beliefs…no problem, neither interferes with their ability to live their lives.
But when you try to restrict peoples activities based on their beliefs, there is intolerance.
But that's not the argument he made at all nor should he have made it because that wasn't the reason for his comments. He didn't want the distraction to his football team if he was hypothetically coaching it. He clearly said he believes Sam should have the opportunity, but that Dungy wouldn't have been the guy to give it to him because in his opinion the distraction to the other 60 guys in training camp and beyond were not worth it.
Where do you get the idea his beliefs had anything to do with his comments about Sam, because certainly nothing he said insinuated that at all.
-
But that's not the argument he made at all nor should he have made it because that wasn't the reason for his comments. He didn't want the distraction to his football team if he was hypothetically coaching it. He clearly said he believes Sam should have the opportunity, but that Dungy wouldn't have been the guy to give it to him because in his opinion the distraction to the other 60 guys in training camp and beyond were not worth it.
Where do you get the idea his beliefs had anything to do with his comments about Sam, because certainly nothing he said insinuated that at all.
Maybe because he has openly fought against the rights of gays to marry. There is no doubt his feelings toward gays and the right they deserve.
-
Dead from the neck-up
-
It is amazing as a supposedly educated man how you keep missing the point, and now you take it to an extreme you know isn't the case.
ALL OF THEM ARE INTOLERANT, that's entirely the point. You, me, everyone else. And you can bet your bottom dollar the a-holes claiming to be the morally superior super tolerant are, in fact, the most INTOLERANT of the bunch. Simply because by THEIR very definition of tolerance which includes religious views, etc, they ignore them completely and minimalize them.
Do I support stoning of a woman that was raped? Of course not. Do I think homosexuals are abhorrent to society? Of course not. Do I acknowledge that there are religious views that say marriage is between a man and a woman? Yes. Does that make them right? Who knows, but I acknowledge those views exist and do not dismiss them out of hand. Maybe someday we will all be judged or not judged, depending on what is real or not. No one knows. What I do know is that I acknowledge that people do have legitimate views grounded in religious viewpoints, while the super tolerant among us dismiss those views out of hand, DESPITE the very notion of tolerant behavior espouses to be.
Really. Not. Hard.
Yup. Hypocrisy is everywhere in everyone in the entire world. We could have just said that, all agreed, and saved 8 pages in this thread. But instead a bunch of people got caught up in semantics, hypotheticals and specifics.
-
Yup. Hypocrisy is everywhere in everyone in the entire world. We could have just said that, all agreed, and saved 8 pages in this thread. But instead a bunch of people got caught up in semantics, hypotheticals and specifics.
but that's the beauty of having open and honest discussions. to debate or throw opinions back and forth. i am sure, through all this however, some thinking was created, clarity was made, some opinions were changed, chico still gets beat up for a head-fake and a hypothetical, and the so called most "tolerant" are really still the most "intolerant". just ask them ;D
-
Yup. Hypocrisy is everywhere in everyone in the entire world. We could have just said that, all agreed, and saved 8 pages in this thread. But instead a bunch of people got caught up in semantics, hypotheticals and specifics.
We've said that many times, yet all too often the most hypocritical deny it. Exhibit A is those that claim to be tolerant and cast aspersions on others saying others aren't. Think about it next time you see who is calling someone an Uncle Tom, a Redneck, a fundamentalist, etc....look who is stating those words. The irony is often incredible.
-
(http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/bee5314/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F7f%2Ff504e0d8d949f94b1162080ee1dc65%2F41199EC_130501_stantis.jpg)
-
Agreed....doesn't make him any less of a hypocrite.
To be a hypocrite you have to act in a way that is different under the same circumstances. Are the circumstances the same with Vick and Sam? I don't think so.
-
That's some gotcha BS.
White males are the most intolerant people.
I can point out A TON of historic and current examples. (Hooray for the internet!)
It doesn't make my hypothesis true.
White males aren't claiming to be tolerant, that's the entire point. It is those that claim to be tolerant that are the ones worth exposing. We're all intolerant to a degree, all bigoted to a degree, it is the a-holes that claim they are not that are worth pointing out....which is exactly what I did.
-
You're a hospital. Not a "Christian" hospital. You want all the legal tax breaks and profits from publicly-traded insurance companies and grants from the State and payments from public and private sector workers, then you act like a hospital that doesn't discriminate. Deal. Additionally, all these hospitals were providing birth control to employees way before this scary Obamacare started. It's amazing how many of them suddenly "object" to it now.
Please try to argue that Christianity (the religion) is not sexist. Go ahead. Try it. I dare you.
The problems with these "beliefs" is that they're factually incorrect. I don't need your opinions on facts.
Calling something sexist or racist does not make me "intolerant." You're literally arguing we should never point out when someone is a bigot because....the word sounds mean?
So if you're a school, you can't be a Christian school...do I have that correct also?
I think you are ignoring what is trying to happen and what Christian hospitals are attempting to do, which is be a hospital but a CHRISTIAN hospital. There is, despite your comments, a difference.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-bishops-sued-by-aclu-for-not-allowing-abortion-in-catholic-hospital-110407/
-
It was a response to Chicos, on a specific comment. Of course all the Abrahamic religions are exceedingly sexist.
Are the girl scouts of America sexist? How about NOW? Are they relying on 1000's of years of tradition, religious dogma (which you may or may not agree with)?
-
So if you're a school, you can't be a Christian school...do I have that correct also?
I think you are ignoring what is trying to happen and what Christian hospitals are attempting to do, which is be a hospital but a CHRISTIAN hospital. There is, despite your comments, a difference.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-bishops-sued-by-aclu-for-not-allowing-abortion-in-catholic-hospital-110407/
You can be a Christian school, but to be accredited you have to meet specific requirements. If you do not follow those requirements you fail to be recognized for your educational output.
Similarly, to be a functional hospital, the government can require that you perform to standards of 'accreditation.'
-
You can be a Christian school, but to be accredited you have to meet specific requirements. If you do not follow those requirements you fail to be recognized for your educational output.
Similarly, to be a functional hospital, the government can require that you perform to standards of 'accreditation.'
That's when the Supreme Court comes into play and may say the gov't's requirements step on their religious rights.
Depending on how lawsuits shake out, how much of a push to step on religious rights continues from the left in this country, etc, could have a very real impact.
“Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching,” said Cardinal George. “The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.”
He continued: “What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.”
-
That's when the Supreme Court comes into play and may say the gov't's requirements step on their religious rights.
Depending on how lawsuits shake out, how much of a push to step on religious rights continues from the left in this country, etc, could have a very real impact.
“Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching,” said Cardinal George. “The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.”
He continued: “What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.”
If those hospitals want to be free from the government regulations then they should not be accepting government funds. But they do and as such the government should have a say in what is provided.
-
If those hospitals want to be free from the government regulations then they should not be accepting government funds. But they do and as such the government should have a say in what is provided.
What gov't funds are you referring to?
-
If those hospitals want to be free from the government regulations then they should not be accepting government funds. But they do and as such the government should have a say in what is provided.
Again, this is where the Supreme Court gets to decide how over reaching the gov't is or isn't.
Most of the situations I'm aware of, Catholic hospitals REJECT gov't funding so they can remain religious freedom. Not always the case.
Catholic charities over hundreds of years in this country have been instrumental in providing health care, education, food, clothing, shelter. What a shame it would be to force a PRIVATE and RELIGIOUS institution to violate their ethos by forcing them to provide services that directly contradict some of the most profound doctrine of the church, including when life begins.
-
Again, this is where the Supreme Court gets to decide how over reaching the gov't is or isn't.
Most of the situations I'm aware of, Catholic hospitals REJECT gov't funding so they can remain religious freedom. Not always the case.
Catholic charities over hundreds of years in this country have been instrumental in providing health care, education, food, clothing, shelter. What a shame it would be to force a PRIVATE and RELIGIOUS institution to violate their ethos by forcing them to provide services that directly contradict some of the most profound doctrine of the church, including when life begins.
All Catholic hospitals receive money from the Fed gov't.
-
All Catholic hospitals receive money from the Fed gov't.
What kind of funding? Medicare, Medicaid?
-
What kind of funding? Medicare, Medicaid?
Many accept grants and aid, some do not. Several dioceses no longer accept any state or federal monies of any kind, while certainly others still take funding to help the hospital, school, etc.
It's one of the reasons Notre Dame sued the current administration as has Catholic charities.
Basically the gov't is saying if you accept money of any kind, you must provide all these services or lose the money....your religious views don't mean a damn...money trumps all. I get why the gov't attaches the strings, but I also feel the gov't has no trouble squashing religious rights over other rights....religious rights become secondary.
-
Many accept grants and aid, some do not. Several dioceses no longer accept any state or federal monies of any kind, while certainly others still take funding to help the hospital, school, etc.
It's one of the reasons Notre Dame sued the current administration as has Catholic charities.
Basically the gov't is saying if you accept money of any kind, you must provide all these services or lose the money....your religious views don't mean a damn...money trumps all. I get why the gov't attaches the strings, but I also feel the gov't has no trouble squashing religious rights over other rights....religious rights become secondary.
If I don't have the ability to pick and choose where my tax money goes, why should they have the ability to pick and choose where they get to spend it?
-
Many accept grants and aid, some do not. Several dioceses no longer accept any state or federal monies of any kind, while certainly others still take funding to help the hospital, school, etc.
It's one of the reasons Notre Dame sued the current administration as has Catholic charities.
Basically the gov't is saying if you accept money of any kind, you must provide all these services or lose the money....your religious views don't mean a damn...money trumps all. I get why the gov't attaches the strings, but I also feel the gov't has no trouble squashing religious rights over other rights....religious rights become secondary.
Wrong. All catholic hospitals accept gov't dollars.
-
(http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/bee5314/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F7f%2Ff504e0d8d949f94b1162080ee1dc65%2F41199EC_130501_stantis.jpg)
Ah yes, pity the poor, downtrodden American Christian.
If it isn't the "War on Christmas," it is "reverse discrimination" or some other scourge that lets them set a mere 98% of the national agenda.
-
Wrong. All catholic hospitals accept gov't dollars.
So what you are telling us is a Catholic ( a Marquette grad spelling Catholic with a lower case c tells me a lot about you.) hospital gives up its principles to accept Medicare and Medicaid. These are funds that allow it to continue operating and continuing to serve a population that is underserved already. Or maybe they should just move to the suburbs?
-
Ah yes, pity the poor, downtrodden American Christian.
If it isn't the "War on Christmas," it is "reverse discrimination" or some other scourge that lets them set a mere 98% of the national agenda.
98%....which orifice did that come from? ;D
-
If I don't have the ability to pick and choose where my tax money goes, why should they have the ability to pick and choose where they get to spend it?
Haven't you learned? Life ain't fair. Why is it fair that I get to pay taxes at a much higher rate than most people? Why is it fair that 47% of the "citizens" in this country pay no federal income taxes? Lots of stuff isn't fair.
-
So what you are telling us is a Catholic ( a Marquette grad spelling Catholic with a lower case c tells me a lot about you.) hospital gives up its principles to accept Medicare and Medicaid. These are funds that allow it to continue operating and continuing to serve a population that is underserved already. Or maybe they should just move to the suburbs?
I can only imagine Brandx was responding to me. smh Apparently he doesn't realize the number of hospitals and doctors who no longer Accept Medicare. The majority still do, but not all.
Also, should the 1973 Church Amendment should be ignored?
-
98%....which orifice did that come from? ;D
Sorry. More like 99.5%.
Happy Holidays!
-
I can only imagine Brandx was responding to me. smh Apparently he doesn't realize the number of hospitals and doctors who no longer Accept Medicare. The majority still do, but not all.
Also, should the 1973 Church Amendment should be ignored?
Hmm... So some Catholic hospitals are turning away the elderly, disabled, and Veterans? I didn't think they could stoop any lower than their previous scandal.
But as I said earlier - and it IS fact - all hospitals receive public funding. Some here want to manipulate statistics to say it isn't so, but that is a lie.
This occurs not only through the obvious Medicare and Medicaid payments, and treatment of Veterans, but also through the use of public bonds to fund things like construction and improvement programs. All of us taxpayers - Catholic and non-Catholic - are paying to have Vatican doctrines deny things like voluntary sterilization, HIV prevention counseling and even simple referrals for birth control.
-
This thread should turn to fishing.
It's the only way it can be saved.
I'll start.
My favorite fish to eat is bluegill/sunfish. You have to catch a lot of them to make a decent meal, but man, I love the taste.
-
This thread should turn to fishing.
It's the only way it can be saved.
I'll start.
My favorite fish to eat is bluegill/sunfish. You have to catch a lot of them to make a decent meal, but man, I love the taste.
I've always been partial to perch or walleye…perch because they are thinner and when fried are delicious.
-
So what you are telling us is a Catholic ( a Marquette grad spelling Catholic with a lower case c tells me a lot about you.) hospital gives up its principles to accept Medicare and Medicaid. These are funds that allow it to continue operating and continuing to serve a population that is underserved already. Or maybe they should just move to the suburbs?
Yes.
-
(http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/bee5314/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F7f%2Ff504e0d8d949f94b1162080ee1dc65%2F41199EC_130501_stantis.jpg)
Your victimhood is so pathetic.
-
Another 1% martyr.
-
This thread should turn to fishing.
It's the only way it can be saved.
I'll start.
My favorite fish to eat is bluegill/sunfish. You have to catch a lot of them to make a decent meal, but man, I love the taste.
A nice lemon swordfish
-
Yes.
Not exactly sure how to interpret, but
hey, how about those tasty lake perch or walleyes?
-
Another 1% martyr.
Grateful people (1%ers -99%ers) are happy people. Resentful braggarts in the 1% or "you owe me!" people in the 99th%? - not so much.
-
I've always been partial to perch or walleye…perch because they are thinner and when fried are delicious.
Oooh, I love me some walleye. It's been so long since we lived in Minnesota. People down south never heard of it.
My single favorite fish, though, is Copper River Salmon. It's available only for a few weeks every year, usually in June. Very prevalent in Washington state, though it gets shipped fresh around the country. I like to season it a little and then grill it on a cedar plank! Sadly, I was able to get it only once this year.
-
This thread should turn to fishing.
It's the only way it can be saved.
I'll start.
My favorite fish to eat is bluegill/sunfish. You have to catch a lot of them to make a decent meal, but man, I love the taste.
I'm not a fisherman - and it still sounds like a good idea.
-
Mrs. Paul's vs VandeKamp's. Discuss.
-
Your victimhood is so pathetic.
Blah blah blah.
First, I'm not in the 1% and never will be. Reinko suggested that the media wasn't doing some of this with Tebow. Many of us disagree, this political cartoon illustrates it quite nicely. Of course they did it with Tebow.
That's all it was, nothing to do with victimhood, just showing how the media has a double standard, but it is fun watching you and the others get upset and start throwing around 1%, martyrdom, etc....must be part of the tolerance play. :D
Carry on with your tunnel vision.
-
This thread should turn to fishing.
It's the only way it can be saved.
I'll start.
My favorite fish to eat is bluegill/sunfish. You have to catch a lot of them to make a decent meal, but man, I love the taste.
My favorite is the delta smelt fish that is preventing farmers in this state from getting water to grow enough crops to feed this nation. They are really important fish....apparently.
-
Grateful people (1%ers -99%ers) are happy people. Resentful braggarts in the 1% or "you owe me!" people in the 99th%? - not so much.
Study after study, libertarians (small "l") and conservatives happier than liberals. I know I am.
Who is bragging they are in the 1%? No one here that I can see, so you must have made up shyte again. I don't come close, that being said I do pay a lot of taxes and many people pay very little. As stated, life isn't always fair. It is what it is. Some people deserve the services they receive and can't pay taxes. Others, well they cheat the system badly and the rest of us have to pay. Life isn't always fair.
Let me know the next made up statement you are going to make, though it might take me a week or two to get back to you so make sure it's a doozy.
-
(http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/bee5314/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F7f%2Ff504e0d8d949f94b1162080ee1dc65%2F41199EC_130501_stantis.jpg)
Yeah...because the fact that a good amount of professional athletes are Christian, but only one (at the time) athlete had come out as gay had nothing to do with it.
-
Warriors, no one denies this, but at least admit the double standard.
Also, are you suggesting there were a lot of other athletes like Tebow? If that is the case, seems a little odd that so much would be made of him since there are so many like him. In my view, he was a unique situation, just as Sam is.
My two cents, but I don't buy for a second that there are plenty in the media and elsewhere that will shut you down immediately when religious overtones come into play vs other commentary.
-
Warriors, no one denies this, but at least admit the double standard.
Also, are you suggesting there were a lot of other athletes like Tebow? If that is the case, seems a little odd that so much would be made of him since there are so many like him. In my view, he was a unique situation, just as Sam is.
My two cents, but I don't buy for a second that there are plenty in the media and elsewhere that will shut you down immediately when religious overtones come into play vs other commentary.
Wait I'm confused are actually trying to say that you think a white christian guy coming out as a christian in a predominately christian white country in which one of the two national parties attempts to include christianity in it's agenda should be applauded as much as an african american coming out as gay in a country where a party is actively trying to prevent them from equality and a still huge amount of people actively hate that form of sexuality?
I'm sorry man I know you feel like a victim of discrimination because nobody wants to tolerate intolerance but there's different levels of being a minority and Sam hit the jackpot thus deserves to be applauded tremendously.
-
Wait I'm confused are actually trying to say that you think a white christian guy coming out as a christian in a predominately christian white country in which one of the two national parties attempts to include christianity in it's agenda should be applauded as much as an african american coming out as gay in a country where a party is actively trying to prevent them from equality and a still huge amount of people actively hate that form of sexuality?
I'm sorry man I know you feel like a victim of discrimination because nobody wants to tolerate intolerance but there's different levels of being a minority and Sam hit the jackpot thus deserves to be applauded tremendously.
Well said, young man.
-
Wait I'm confused are actually trying to say that you think a white christian guy coming out as a christian in a predominately christian white country in which one of the two national parties attempts to include christianity in it's agenda should be applauded as much as an african american coming out as gay in a country where a party is actively trying to prevent them from equality and a still huge amount of people actively hate that form of sexuality?
Incredibly well stated.
Just remember....Chicos always wants to be the victim. (That's why he has me on ignore.)
-
Wait I'm confused are actually trying to say that you think a white christian guy coming out as a christian in a predominately christian white country in which one of the two national parties attempts to include christianity in it's agenda should be applauded as much as an african american coming out as gay in a country where a party is actively trying to prevent them from equality and a still huge amount of people actively hate that form of sexuality?
I'm sorry man I know you feel like a victim of discrimination because nobody wants to tolerate intolerance but there's different levels of being a minority and Sam hit the jackpot thus deserves to be applauded tremendously.
Where do I fell like a victim of discrimination in this situation? I do feel there is a double standard in many of these things, but that hardly means a feeling of discrimination in this situation. You want to talk about other topics where there is discrimination, I'm all for it, but you're off base here.
Tebow didn't come out as a Christian guy. What you are missing here is that he was excoriated by many because he did. His views, don't count. In fact, he was often butchered for them. That was the point. Thus the double standard. This isn't really that hard.
-
Where do I fell like a victim of discrimination in this situation? I do feel there is a double standard in many of these things, but that hardly means a feeling of discrimination in this situation. You want to talk about other topics where there is discrimination, I'm all for it, but you're off base here.
Tebow didn't come out as a Christian guy. What you are missing here is that he was excoriated by many because he did. His views, don't count. In fact, he was often butchered for them. That was the point. Thus the double standard. This isn't really that hard.
Uh... Tebow got shredded by many for his beliefs and statements. Sam gets shredded by many for his beliefs and statements. Difference is, with Sam in a super minority, there are more vocal defenders. Pretty true for any minority situation across the board. There are people who attack any/every group across the world. And yes, the media is very hypocritical in a lot of ways.
Is everyone coming up with arguments just for the sake of arguing at this point? EVERYONE gets persecuted by someone. The media is stupid. Hypocrites and double standards exist. Can we move on from that terribly repetitive line of drivel now?
-
Study after study, libertarians (small "l") and conservatives happier than liberals. I know I am.
I'm an Independent. I think I'm happy but maybe you better quote one of those dozens of studies for me so I can be sure.
-
Mrs. Paul's vs VandeKamp's. Discuss.
Are we talking for fish-sticks or fish filets, it's an important distinction.
-
Uh... Tebow got shredded by many for his beliefs and statements. Sam gets shredded by many for his beliefs and statements. Difference is, with Sam in a super minority, there are more vocal defenders. Pretty true for any minority situation across the board. There are people who attack any/every group across the world. And yes, the media is very hypocritical in a lot of ways.
Is everyone coming up with arguments just for the sake of arguing at this point? EVERYONE gets persecuted by someone. The media is stupid. Hypocrites and double standards exist. Can we move on from that terribly repetitive line of drivel now?
I respect you Jesu, at least you have the stones to admit. Many here are incapable
-
Incredibly well stated.
Just remember....Chicos always wants to be the victim. (That's why he has me on ignore.)
We've got something good in common!!
-
My favorite is the delta smelt fish that is preventing farmers in this state from getting water to grow enough crops to feed this nation. They are really important fish....apparently.
you all waste too much water out in Cali anyway, get used to conserving before the H20 wars begin...
-
you all waste too much water out in Cali anyway, get used to conserving before the H20 wars begin...
Way, WAY OT... http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jul/27/water-nestle-drink-charge-privatize-companies-stocks
-
Way, WAY OT... http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jul/27/water-nestle-drink-charge-privatize-companies-stocks
Not shocked at all by this, the concept has even been the driving plot of several fictional novels like Clive Cussler's Blue Gold and others.
It's an intriguing policy question....anything that has scarcity and requires cost to extract in theory could be bought and sold in a capitalistic market. However it is a resource required for life so government has a role but what is that role.
Short term, the worse thing is that not only are companies commoditizing water, but they are branding water in various ways as replacements for the flagging soda brands. Soda is becoming less popular so they have decided water is the next frontier and the ever stupid public buys into it even though some of the water products are really no better for you than soda is. I'm all for what the market will bear but see this as a continuing trend of the stupidification(yes this is meant ironically) of humanity.
-
I think it is a reasonable question to ask if places like Las Vegas or Phoenix will even exist in 100-200 years. And assuming they do, what restrictions will be placed on them and how expensive will that make the cost of living.
-
Study after study, libertarians (small "l") and conservatives happier than liberals. I know I am.
Study after study prove the more education you receive, the more liberal you become.
-
Study after study prove the more education you receive, the more liberal you become.
I think you have to define liberal in what.....social policy, I think that's probably true. Fiscal matters, I would really question that.
-
I think it is a reasonable question to ask if places like Las Vegas or Phoenix will even exist in 100-200 years. And assuming they do, what restrictions will be placed on them and how expensive will that make the cost of living.
Not trying to parse things too much, but I was out to Phoenix for work recently and spent a fair amount of time with the municipal water works and other infrastructure folks. Phoenix has a 200 year water plan and actually have way more water than they can use. In fact, water in Phoenix is cheaper than the midwest. However, they put the infrastructure and policies in place 50 years ago to allow for such a thing. A lot of places aren't nearly that forward thinking.
-
I'm an Independent. I think I'm happy but maybe you better quote one of those dozens of studies for me so I can be sure.
From the NY Times, 2012:
"Scholars on both the left and right have studied this question extensively, and have reached a consensus that it is conservatives who possess the happiness edge. Many data sets show this. For example, the Pew Research Center in 2006 reported that conservative Republicans were 68 percent more likely than liberal Democrats to say they were “very happy” about their lives. This pattern has persisted for decades. The question isn’t whether this is true, but why.
Many conservatives favor an explanation focusing on lifestyle differences, such as marriage and faith. They note that most conservatives are married; most liberals are not. (The percentages are 53 percent to 33 percent, according to my calculations using data from the 2004 General Social Survey, and almost none of the gap is due to the fact that liberals tend to be younger than conservatives.) Marriage and happiness go together. If two people are demographically the same but one is married and the other is not, the married person will be 18 percentage points more likely to say he or she is very happy than the unmarried person.
The story on religion is much the same. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, conservatives who practice a faith outnumber religious liberals in America nearly four to one. And the link to happiness? You guessed it. Religious participants are nearly twice as likely to say they are very happy about their lives as are secularists (43 percent to 23 percent). The differences don’t depend on education, race, sex or age; the happiness difference exists even when you account for income."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/conservatives-are-happier-and-extremists-are-happiest-of-all.html?_r=0
Or here
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/24/extreme_conservatives_are_happier_than_you_partner/
Or here for you women
http://nypost.com/2013/12/27/conservative-women-hold-secret-to-happiness/
Etc, etc. I found studies from 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013. USA, Canada, Europe, etc. Pretty easy to find.
Glad you are independent, smart choice. After being a registered Democrat for a time in my youth, then a registered Republican for a time, I have long kicked the parties to the side for the last 15 years. Been wonderful. My wife is still a diehard Republican, so we get the mailings and crap, but she can sift through the nonsense.
-
Study after study prove the more education you receive, the more liberal you become.
I must be the exception. When I left MU, I was liberal and a Democrat. Then I added two graduate degrees and became more conservative and libertarian in my views.
Of course, studies also show the LEAST educated people are also liberal. Roll out the graphs...tells a more complete story, of course this is based on party not based on ideology so it is slightly different.
2000 Election
(http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/2000-presidential-education.jpg?w=640)
2004 Election
(http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/2004-presidential-education.jpg?w=640)
2008 Election
(http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/2008-presidential-education.jpg?w=640)
2012 Election
(http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/conservative-vs-liberal-education-2012.jpg?w=640)
-
you all waste too much water out in Cali anyway, get used to conserving before the H20 wars begin...
The wars began well over 100 years ago on H2O out west. Not sure how we are "wasting" water our here, but I suppose any interpretation could work. I'm seriously considering putting in artificial grass. Three neighbors on the street have done so in the last year. It's a hassle to mow the lawns anyway and I refuse to hire illegal labor to do it, so that might be an option.
-
Uh... Tebow got shredded by many for his beliefs and statements. Sam gets shredded by many for his beliefs and statements. Difference is, with Sam in a super minority, there are more vocal defenders. Pretty true for any minority situation across the board. There are people who attack any/every group across the world. And yes, the media is very hypocritical in a lot of ways.
Is everyone coming up with arguments just for the sake of arguing at this point? EVERYONE gets persecuted by someone. The media is stupid. Hypocrites and double standards exist. Can we move on from that terribly repetitive line of drivel now?
I guess I would like to see some examples of Sam being shredded in the media for his beliefs and statements? It's so toxic and so glowing hot, it won't happen. Tebow, on the other hand, got killed left and right because it's open season to rail on Christians. If you can find a number of examples where the MEDIA rips on Sam or Collins, I'm all ears. I suspect if you were to do an honest comparison of the two, the assaults would be much higher on one side than the other.
(http://www.reflectionsofaparalytic.com/images/tebow-toon-web.jpg)
(http://assets.matchbin.com/sites/274/assets/7B62_10_28_11Tim_Tebow.jpg)
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxor18TO2A1r63hf8o1_500.jpg)
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-51802a5a/turbine/sfl-chan-lowe-tim-tebow-dropped-from-the-jets--001)
(http://media.cagle.com/152/2011/12/15/103034_600.jpg)
(https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0070/35209_cartoon_main/the-tebow-spectacle.jpg?206)
(http://patriotupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/tebow-obama-cartoon.jpg)
-
Interesting opinion piece. If Tebow were gay, all would be forgiven. He has a point.
One is celebrated, one is not. Why can't both be celebrated?
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/blogs/david-whitley/os-if-tim-tebow-were-gay-all-would-be-forgiven-20140515,0,5939828.post
-
I guessed I just missed all those who mocked Tebow for his Christianity. I saw that he was mocked for being over-hyped. I'm sure some people mocked him for being a Christian, just like some are going to mock Sam for being gay, but I think people just got tired of the hype machine for him as a quarterback...because he by and large sucked.
-
I guessed I just missed all those who mocked Tebow for his Christianity. I saw that he was mocked for being over-hyped. I'm sure some people mocked him for being a Christian, just like some are going to mock Sam for being gay, but I think people just got tired of the hype machine for him as a quarterback...because he by and large sucked.
Exactly. It was ESPN being freaking annoying and shoving him down everyone's throats for 3 years. Not his Christianity.
-
What if Tebow was a gay, Christian, terrible QB?
-
Well if it hurts that much to see a white Christian torn up then he can look for the support of another one of the millions of other white Christians who aren't getting torn up. If Sam gets torn up there's not exactly millions of out black gay men.
I'm with sultan I'm sure he got mocked but I think you're acting like he's Obama on Fox News while in actuality he just annoyed a few people with the religion. Bottom line is a public figure is gonna get torn apart no matter what. But to say someone who's part of a super majority deserves the same sensitivity as a super minority just seems wrong on all sorts of levels.
-
Further thought...
There are a lot of very Christian players in major sports. Curt Warner and Derek Fischer are two off the top of my head who were fairly open about their faith but were by and large not mocked for it. I think that is exactly what we want from gay athletes. That they can do their job, but be open about who they are and not have it be that big of a deal.
-
Exactly. It was ESPN being freaking annoying and shoving him down everyone's throats for 3 years. Not his Christianity.
Hmm, so if people feel like Sam, Collins, etc are shoved down everyone's throats that's ok to opine about? Want to bet the second that starts one is labeled as homophobic. Again, the double standards.
And yes, a number of people slammed him for BEING Christian in the open, regardless of what ESPN or anyone else did. They didn't like his answers when a microphone was in his face or reporter printing his words. Happy to provide those examples and then you adjust your quote above accordingly.
-
Well if it hurts that much to see a white Christian torn up then he can look for the support of another one of the millions of other white Christians who aren't getting torn up. If Sam gets torn up there's not exactly millions of out black gay men.
I'm with sultan I'm sure he got mocked but I think you're acting like he's Obama on Fox News while in actuality he just annoyed a few people with the religion. Bottom line is a public figure is gonna get torn apart no matter what. But to say someone who's part of a super majority deserves the same sensitivity as a super minority just seems wrong on all sorts of levels.
Again, can you provide all the examples of Sam being torn up by the media. I'd like to see these, since he is a public figure and all.
-
Where do I fell like a victim of discrimination in this situation? I do feel there is a double standard in many of these things, but that hardly means a feeling of discrimination in this situation. You want to talk about other topics where there is discrimination, I'm all for it, but you're off base here.
Tebow didn't come out as a Christian guy. What you are missing here is that he was excoriated by many because he did. His views, don't count. In fact, he was often butchered for them. That was the point. Thus the double standard. This isn't really that hard.
Well you keep complaining about intolerance of religious views. You keep saying about how unfair Tebow was treated. I can only imagine as a christian yourself that this feeling is rooted in something you feel you have experienced. If I'm wrong then my sincerest apologies.
What do you mean by his views don't count and he was butchered. The guy's a football player not a politician views don't count unless he's talking about what play to run. Consequently it makes no sense for him to talk about his christian views or anything as Christianity is the super majority in terms of religion (including atheism) in this country. The reason Sam needs to talk about it is because if when he was drafted the camera caught him kissing his boyfriend, without him coming out, then half of America (particularly 45.7% in 08 and 47.2% in 12) would sh*t a brick.
-
Well you keep complaining about intolerance of religious views. You keep saying about how unfair Tebow was treated. I can only imagine as a christian yourself that this feeling is rooted in something you feel you have experienced. If I'm wrong then my sincerest apologies.
What do you mean by his views don't count and he was butchered. The guy's a football player not a politician views don't count unless he's talking about what play to run. Consequently it makes no sense for him to talk about his christian views or anything as Christianity is the super majority in terms of religion (including atheism) in this country. The reason Sam needs to talk about it is because if when he was drafted the camera caught him kissing his boyfriend, without him coming out, then half of America (particularly 45.7% in 08 and 47.2% in 12) would sh*t a brick.
Whoa whoa, because he is a football player he can't talk about something other than football? Did you really just say that?
-
Again, can you provide all the examples of Sam being torn up by the media. I'd like to see these, since he is a public figure and all.
Well here's one example http://www.edgeboston.com/news/national/News/162106/labarbera:_michael_sam_is_a_%E2%80%99bad_role_model,%E2%80%99_should_become_an_%E2%80%99ex-gay%E2%80%99
But no reason for him to be he came out and told the world he was gay, isn't putting it in the spotlight instead is just trying to make the team.
Quite frankly Tebow rubbed it in peoples faces he made it front and center about him being an athlete. Not only that but he made sure that everyone knew he was extremely devout. If a person wants to not get torn up say your a christian leave it at that and let your game do the talking (which in Tebow's case I guess I see why he had to rely on the Christian thing)
-
Whoa whoa, because he is a football player he can't talk about something other than football? Did you really just say that?
In terms of his views "counting", which is the term you used, then yes. He's a football player his views "count" for football. Of course beyond that he's going to get torn apart. Did not say he can't talk about something other than football. But he's going to get torn apart as a public figure.
-
I guess I would like to see some examples of Sam being shredded in the media for his beliefs and statements? It's so toxic and so glowing hot, it won't happen. Tebow, on the other hand, got killed left and right because it's open season to rail on Christians. If you can find a number of examples where the MEDIA rips on Sam or Collins, I'm all ears. I suspect if you were to do an honest comparison of the two, the assaults would be much higher on one side than the other.
Minority vs. Majority. Same as every other topic in history ever. Also, the same things you agreed with me about the first time you responded. I'll just copy/paste this again:
Difference is, with Sam in a super minority, there are more vocal defenders. Pretty true for any minority situation across the board. There are people who attack any/every group across the world. And yes, the media is very hypocritical in a lot of ways.
Is everyone coming up with arguments just for the sake of arguing at this point? EVERYONE gets persecuted by someone. The media is stupid. Hypocrites and double standards exist. Can we move on from that terribly repetitive line of drivel now?
-
Well here's one example http://www.edgeboston.com/news/national/News/162106/labarbera:_michael_sam_is_a_%E2%80%99bad_role_model,%E2%80%99_should_become_an_%E2%80%99ex-gay%E2%80%99
But no reason for him to be he came out and told the world he was gay, isn't putting it in the spotlight instead is just trying to make the team.
Quite frankly Tebow rubbed it in peoples faces he made it front and center about him being an athlete. Not only that but he made sure that everyone knew he was extremely devout. If a person wants to not get torn up say your a christian leave it at that and let your game do the talking (which in Tebow's case I guess I see why he had to rely on the Christian thing)
Edgeboston? Please, tell me you can do better on the media side. Show me all these crazy beatdowns in the media Sam is getting from established media.
How did Tebow "rub it in people's faces"? You are feeding right into the double standard by JUSTIFYING the actions taken against him.
-
In terms of his views "counting", which is the term you used, then yes. He's a football player his views "count" for football. Of course beyond that he's going to get torn apart. Did not say he can't talk about something other than football. But he's going to get torn apart as a public figure.
Classic double standard. Would Sam get torn apart in the media for views outside of football? Of course not, partly because they would be fearful of being labeled as anti-gay.
-
Minority vs. Majority. Same as every other topic in history ever. Also, the same things you agreed with me about the first time you responded. I'll just copy/paste this again:
Difference is, with Sam in a super minority, there are more vocal defenders. Pretty true for any minority situation across the board. There are people who attack any/every group across the world. And yes, the media is very hypocritical in a lot of ways.
Is everyone coming up with arguments just for the sake of arguing at this point? EVERYONE gets persecuted by someone. The media is stupid. Hypocrites and double standards exist. Can we move on from that terribly repetitive line of drivel now?
You seem to get it, but based on Bagpipe's last two answers, he certainly doesn't. Some people don't recognize or acknowledge the hypocrisy. What's worse, they perpetuate it and fuel it. Even justify it in their own minds. Fun to watch, that's for sure.
-
You seem to get it, but based on Bagpipe's last two answers, he certainly doesn't. Some people don't recognize or acknowledge the hypocrisy. What's worse, they perpetuate it and fuel it. Even justify it in their own minds. Fun to watch, that's for sure.
People root for underdogs.
There. I said it.
Is everybody good?
-
You seem to get it, but based on Bagpipe's last two answers, he certainly doesn't. Some people don't recognize or acknowledge the hypocrisy. What's worse, they perpetuate it and fuel it. Even justify it in their own minds. Fun to watch, that's for sure.
It's not hypocrisy to be sensitive minorities that face discrimination and just let majorities be. Like I said before I think you're blowing the amount of criticism tenor faced WAY out of proportion just to back up your point.
-
The wars began well over 100 years ago on H2O out west. Not sure how we are "wasting" water our here, but I suppose any interpretation could work. I'm seriously considering putting in artificial grass. Three neighbors on the street have done so in the last year. It's a hassle to mow the lawns anyway and I refuse to hire illegal labor to do it, so that might be an option.
Um, I meant when the western states come demanding water from the Great Lakes. Too bad they stole water to irrigate early in the last century, perhaps you wouldn't have looked so inviting to immigrants and would have less problems now vs. the good old days.
-
Hmm, so if people feel like Sam, Collins, etc are shoved down everyone's throats that's ok to opine about? Want to bet the second that starts one is labeled as homophobic. Again, the double standards.
And yes, a number of people slammed him for BEING Christian in the open, regardless of what ESPN or anyone else did. They didn't like his answers when a microphone was in his face or reporter printing his words. Happy to provide those examples and then you adjust your quote above accordingly.
I love how even talking about Sam being gay equals it being "shoved down" your throat.You clearly have an issue with even two minor-athletes coming out being a story at all. I've turned on ESPN semi-recently, haven't heard about Sam once.
Tebow on the other hand, was a completely different story:
http://deadspin.com/5948667/you-cant-talk-enough-tebow-espns-instructions-to-on-air-talent
http://deadspin.com/5967232/espn-finally-disavows-its-tebow-coverage-we-didnt-handle-that-very-well
But then again, YOU only see what YOU want to see.
-
My mother in law has, as many do, become more religious as she has gotten older. Gone from the Wisconsin Lutheran faith of her upbringing to a fundamentalist mega-church wannabe congregation in rural Indiana. So be it. It makes her happy. All of this leads into my take on the Tebow story.
She was visiting us the week after Tebow had led Denver to their playoff victory over the Steelers. His game is coming on and she is rhapsodizing poetic about how amazing he is. How she would love it if he ended up with either the Colts or the Packers. (Her favorite two teams). I asked her why she wished her favorite two teams ill, as he was a fine young man, a good leader, but a lousy quarterback. She got upset. She equated his Christianity with him being a great football player. As if none of the other players were religious at all. I disagreed and she got offended.
IMO, Tebow is the most overhyped 3rd string QB in history. I couldn't care less about his religion. If the Lions were to sign him to replace Kellen Moore as their 3rd QB, I would be ambivalent. Both are lefthanded QB's who won a lot in college, but lack the fastball to be a fulltime starter in the league. To me, nothing more, nothing less.
-
Hmm, so if people feel like Sam, Collins, etc are shoved down everyone's throats that's ok to opine about? Want to bet the second that starts one is labeled as homophobic. Again, the double standards.
And yes, a number of people slammed him for BEING Christian in the open, regardless of what ESPN or anyone else did. They didn't like his answers when a microphone was in his face or reporter printing his words. Happy to provide those examples and then you adjust your quote above accordingly.
There is a joke somewhere in here....I just can't find it.
-
My mother in law has, as many do, become more religious as she has gotten older. Gone from the Wisconsin Lutheran faith of her upbringing to a fundamentalist mega-church wannabe congregation in rural Indiana. So be it. It makes her happy. All of this leads into my take on the Tebow story.
She was visiting us the week after Tebow had led Denver to their playoff victory over the Steelers. His game is coming on and she rhapsodizing poetic about how amazing he is. How she would love it if he ended up with either the Colts or the Packers. (Her favorite two teams). I asked her why she wished her favorite two teams ill, as he was a fine young man, a good leader, but a lousy quarterback. She got upset. She equated his Christianity with him being a great football player. As if none of the other players were religious at all. I disagreed and she got offended.
IMO, Tebow is the most overhyped 3rd string QB in history. I couldn't care less about his religion. If the Lions were to sign him to replace Kellen Moore as their 3rd QB, I would be ambivalent. Both are lefthanded QB's who won a lot in college, but lack the fastball to be a fulltime starter in the league. To me, nothing more, nothing less.
Funny!! It reminds me of the Rich Campbell deal in Green Bay on steroids. Sucked as a QB, but he was such a good christian man.
But, your story describes the Tebow phenomenon to a 'T'. Because if we criticized his football abilities, we were persecuting christians and mocking God.
-
There is a joke somewhere in here....I just can't find it.
LOL. I hope Chico did it on purpose.
-
I don't even know what this thread is about, but I know it's been reported too many times for me to let it keep going.