and alot of people would not have drafted Sam.. because most importantly he does not look to be able translate to the NFL talent wise... that is why most avoided him
as a potential distraction not worth dealing with. I seriously doubt he is alone in this regard. The difference is the majority that feel that way won't admit it.
Amazing that in 2014, a majority of coaches-and this is me speculating, but I think I'm right-would rather have a convict on their team than a gay player.
who has openly been against gay marriage but has no problem supporting people like Vick, Harrison, etc. He openly admitted that he doesn't agree with Jason Collins' "lifestyle" when he became the first openly gay NBA player and he also supported legislation aimed at making same sex marriage illegal. He's the epitome of a hypocrite and his comments ironically only serve to draw even more attention to Sam and his team.
because many teams projected he wasn't going to be the same pro player he was in college. There are plenty of examples like this.
But most signs and statements point to his integration into a locker room as the key determinant in his draft position being later than what many expected.
Integration into a locker room is important, but it's beyond idiotic how his situation has seemingly been handled.
It's amazing what can be rationalized in the name of religion.
and lets be real here. It's common knowledge that Dungy is a bit of a bible-thumper. There is a reason he wouldn't take Sam on his team but he has no problem with Michael Vick.
Both would be distractions....one just so happens to be gay. He can run the distraction line all he wants but it's pretty damn easy to see through
Wasn't it rumored that when Tony Dungy's son committed suicided, that the son might have been gay and felt difficulty accepting his identify within his father's world?
who makes a decision based on their faith is a religious nut job? You realize many of you are intolerant and hating on Dungy because he is expressing his belief. The public made this Michael Sam issue into a media circus. I would not want the media hounding the team.
on Inside the NFL several years ago and asked about how he'd handle a gay player. Dungy said something to the effect of "I'd try to talk to him about it." It was said in a religious context, meaning he was going to try to "save" him, I suppose. I was surprised he didn't get in any hot water for the comment, but this was when this was just being introduced as a sports subject.
who makes a decision based on their faith is a religious nut job? You realize many of you are intolerant and hating on Dungy because he is expressing his belief. The public made this Michael Sam issue into a media circus. I would not want the media hounding the team.
Being intolerant of someone being intolerant is a really cute stance to mention. At that point, you just back away from the discussion...
who makes a decision based on their faith is a religious nut job? You realize many of you are intolerant and hating on Dungy because he is expressing his belief. The public made this Michael Sam issue into a media circus. I would not want the media hounding the team.
Yeah. Better that NFL teams are allowed to operate in the total media vacuum in which they used to. No spotlight. No questions. No pressure. Why can't it be like it used to be?? Before that one guy came along and suddenly the Media got all interested.
How did Tony Dungy become this all knowing NFL Oracle? Bill Belichik routintely ran circles around this guy. He had Peyton Manning and a historic offense in its prime and made one super bowl - barely. Guy is vastly overrated as a coach. Well liked around the league - maybe he is a nice guy or maybe he is a fraud - i just have no idea how his stature is so revered in the NFL he was decent head coach who routinely couldnt win the big game.
Unfortunately, we have a situation where the market dictates that certain intolerance is acceptable (like drafting Sam later because of something over which he has no control), but that's the rub.
Sam is homosexual, and it's not something he can control or be "cured" of (not that should enter any legitimate discussion; people who advocate this have an IQ I don't want being replicated anytime soon).
How that should be equated to actions that take conscious choice (such as killing a dog) is beyond me. That we view the two with equivalence is disturbing.
We should be so much more critical about the problems integrating into a locker room where people made a choice to hurt themselves or others, rather than if a person likes the same sex.
And, quite frankly, hopefully in 20 years we can view the dinosaurs Â
Unfortunately, we have a situation where the market dictates that certain intolerance is acceptable (like drafting Sam later because of something over which he has no control), but that's the rub.
Sam is homosexual, and it's not something he can control or be "cured" of (not that should enter any legitimate discussion; people who advocate this have an IQ I don't want being replicated anytime soon).
How that should be equated to actions that take conscious choice (such as killing a dog) is beyond me. That we view the two with equivalence is disturbing.
We should be so much more critical about the problems integrating into a locker room where people made a choice to hurt themselves or others, rather than if a person likes the same sex.
kicker, if I read the argument correctly, posters were saying that Dungy would be OK with a dog torturer yet have a problem with someone who didn't seem to have any shortcomings "except that he's gay". Dungy is OK with the hoopla surrounding a Michael Vick and his travails, and yet invented travails that don't necessarily exist.
Think T'eo? He had his drama that had nothing to do with football and then after he was drafted, it seemed that we didn't hear much more about it. You just answer dopey questions with, "I'm here to talk about football" a few times and any Media drama ceases.
a " religious nut job" because their beliefs are not something that you agree with, is intolerant. "I am right, you are wrong because you are a nut job!" Really? Having different opinions used to be acceptable in this country. Doesn't seem to be that way anymore. If people disagree then they must be haters, and nut jobs.
RE: And, quite frankly, hopefully in 20 years we can view the dinosaurs Â
a " religious nut job" because their beliefs are not something that you agree with, is intolerant. "I am right, you are wrong because you are a nut job!" Really? Having different opinions used to be acceptable in this country. Doesn't seem to be that way anymore. If people disagree then they must be haters, and nut jobs.
The belief itself is ignorant and the criticisms of it are completely warranted.
RE: RE: And, quite frankly, hopefully in 20 years we can view the dinosaurs Â
that think that something not within a person's choice set (again, sexual orientation) is some scarlet letter as aberrations.
Being black used to be something that could pull apart a locker room, and, somehow, we've managed to survive...
Easy fella...I didn't say anything about integration here. Ick!
Randy,
I apologize. My previous posts were a bit carelessly worded.
I'm not worried about people who say that character risks exist in all players (like you).
I'm worried about the people who think that, because it's acceptable that we don't accept some character risks (like Vick), we don't need to accept homosexuals either, because they are a "risk" for the locker room.
People like to site Vick but Vick said he was sorry remorseful and changed his ways. He has not been in trouble since. So as a christian Dungy believe he was remorseful and to help him on his road to recovery.
How does him being against Sam and gays make him a hypocrite. As for the circus be honest there is more than just the media when it comes to Adams you have a locker room to oversee as well. dog fighting and homosexuality will have totally different weight in the locker-room.
Now if Adams had said he WAS gay and changed saw the light or whatever and THEN Dungy still said no and it was because of his past sexuality being a sin then hypocrite could be applied.
a " religious nut job" because their beliefs are not something that you agree with, is intolerant. "I am right, you are wrong because you are a nut job!" Really? Having different opinions used to be acceptable in this country. Doesn't seem to be that way anymore. If people disagree then they must be haters, and nut jobs.
Yeah. Different opinions used to be no problem here. I mean, the Civil War…women's suffrage…the Civil Rights movement…we're a country built on quietly letting ignorant people have their way. Man, the good old days.
a " religious nut job" because their beliefs are not something that you agree with, is intolerant. "I am right, you are wrong because you are a nut job!" Really? Having different opinions used to be acceptable in this country. Doesn't seem to be that way anymore. If people disagree then they must be haters, and nut jobs.
Having different opinions is perfectly acceptable.
But couching opinions in a thin veneer not too far from discrimination isn't.
I have no tolerance for people who espouse homophobic, racist, or other types of shit. Neither should any civilized society. As much as we can push these cretins to the margin, the better.
They can opine, but it certainly doesn't mean it's legitimate or not worthy of significant derision.
Think T'eo? He had his drama that had nothing to do with football and then after he was drafted, it seemed that we didn't hear much more about it.
I assume you meant Tebow. Didn't hear anymore about it? It seemed to even increase and you heard hints that many teams/coaches wouldn't want to deal with the distraction he brings with him.
RE: RE: RE: And, quite frankly, hopefully in 20 years we can view the dinosaurs Â
that think that something not within a person's choice set (again, sexual orientation) is some scarlet letter as aberrations.
Being black used to be something that could pull apart a locker room, and, somehow, we've managed to survive...
Easy fella...I didn't say anything about integration here. Ick!
Randy,
I apologize. My previous posts were a bit carelessly worded.
I'm not worried about people who say that character risks exist in all players (like you).
I'm worried about the people who think that, because it's acceptable that we don't accept some character risks (like Vick), we don't need to accept homosexuals either, because they are a "risk" for the locker room.
Gotcha--you don't have to apologize. When in doubt I'd choose your communication abilities over my reading comprehension.
when Jackie Robinson is a person's hero, but that person wouldn't want Michael Sam on his team because of the "distraction," then I feel fine calling that person a hypocrite.
Think T'eo? He had his drama that had nothing to do with football and then after he was drafted, it seemed that we didn't hear much more about it.
I assume you meant Tebow. Didn't hear anymore about it? It seemed to even increase and you heard hints that many teams/coaches wouldn't want to deal with the distraction he brings with him.
Regardless of the talent, the guy will bring with him a circus and if he happens to get cut, the team and the staff will come under unnecessary scrutiny. Didn't Jason Witlock address this a few months back too?
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
People like to site Vick but Vick said he was sorry remorseful and changed his ways. He has not been in trouble since. So as a christian Dungy believe he was remorseful and to help him on his road to recovery.
How does him being against Sam and gays make him a hypocrite. As for the circus be honest there is more than just the media when it comes to Adams you have a locker room to oversee as well. dog fighting and homosexuality will have totally different weight in the locker-room.
Now if Adams had said he WAS gay and changed saw the light or whatever and THEN Dungy still said no and it was because of his past sexuality being a sin then hypocrite could be applied.
Think T'eo? He had his drama that had nothing to do with football and then after he was drafted, it seemed that we didn't hear much more about it.
I assume you meant Tebow. Didn't hear anymore about it? It seemed to even increase and you heard hints that many teams/coaches wouldn't want to deal with the distraction he brings with him.
It was more about the noodle arm he brought with him.
People like to site Vick but Vick said he was sorry remorseful and changed his ways. He has not been in trouble since. So as a christian Dungy believe he was remorseful and to help him on his road to recovery.
How does him being against Sam and gays make him a hypocrite. As for the circus be honest there is more than just the media when it comes to Adams you have a locker room to oversee as well. dog fighting and homosexuality will have totally different weight in the locker-room.
Now if Adams had said he WAS gay and changed saw the light or whatever and THEN Dungy still said no and it was because of his past sexuality being a sin then hypocrite could be applied.
Not sure who Adams is or what you're talking about.
But I'm fairly sure a good eye stoving will remove Adams or Sam or whoever from their gay problem.
Regardless of the talent, the guy will bring with him a circus and if he happens to get cut, the team and the staff will come under unnecessary scrutiny. Didn't Jason Witlock address this a few months back too?
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
It isn't PC to be anti-homophobe.
Oh. And him being against Sam and homosexuals, but being Â
Both faced a media storm that said that they would be locker room distractions. Both had features being picketed against not under their control (skin color; sexual orientation). And both faced shit parallels about how they aren't being selected because other character risks aren't taken on, without realizing that the two are not observationally equivalent.
The only difference between accepting one and rejecting the other is because of religion.
Be honest there was a lot more going on with Tebow mania and the distractions it would cause a team than his arm strength.
Being honest, the reason he's not playing professional football on any level right now is because he sucks. And if he does get signed somewhere, it's likely because the non-football reasons will be attractive to someone looks to put asses in seats on the level Tebow is capable of competing on. So he'd be rewarded for the circus he brings.
one significant difference would be their respective talent levels. If Sam was as good a football player that Robinson was a baseball player I bet Dungy and every other coach would figure out a way to deal with the distraction.
Be honest there was a lot more going on with Tebow mania and the distractions it would cause a team than his arm strength.
Being honest, the reason he's not playing professional football on any level right now is because he sucks. And if he does get signed somewhere, it's likely because the non-football reasons will be attractive to someone looks to put asses in seats on the level Tebow is capable of competing on. So he'd be rewarded for the circus he brings.
I agree with this. The media did make the religion angle more of a topic than it should have been (perhaps) but he's out of football because he was a bad QB--not due to some anti-Christian agenda (in a league with MANY Christian athletes).
one significant difference would be their respective talent levels. If Sam was as good a football player that Robinson was a baseball player I bet Dungy and every other coach would figure out a way to deal with the distraction.
Be honest there was a lot more going on with Tebow mania and the distractions it would cause a team than his arm strength.
I agree with this. The media did make the religion angle more of a topic than it should have been (perhaps) but he's out of football because he was a bad QB--not due to some anti-Christian agenda (in a league with MANY Christian athletes).
The Media didn't do anything but point the camera at him while he was genuflecting. He wanted attention for being religious. He got it.
But my point was the teams that hinted that Tebow wasn't worth dealing with because of the distraction.
Obviously any player with enough talent will find coaches that are more than willing to deal with most distractions they bring. Players with less talent not so much.
one significant difference would be their respective talent levels. If Sam was as good a football player that Robinson was a baseball player I bet Dungy and every other coach would figure out a way to deal with the distraction.
The only way it would be valid is if Sam could not contribute on the football field.
But my point was the teams that hinted that Tebow wasn't worth dealing with because of the distraction.
Obviously any player with enough talent will find coaches that are more than willing to deal with most distractions they bring. Players with less talent not so much.
And there you go. So Tim Tebow isn't in the NFL right now and Michael Sam is.
The market is speaking.
are pretty singularly focused on one thing, how to make their team better. Any player viewed as being a distraction that may hinder that is weighed against how much his skill level might also benefit the team.
It was a incredibly dumb thing for Dungy to have said, but it is simply naïve to think that many coaches likely wouldn't want to deal with the distraction Sam would bring when weighed against his talents. They are just smart enough to keep their mouths closed.
But my point was the teams that hinted that Tebow wasn't worth dealing with because of the distraction.
Obviously any player with enough talent will find coaches that are more than willing to deal with most distractions they bring. Players with less talent not so much.
And there you go. So Tim Tebow isn't in the NFL right now and Michael Sam is.
The market is speaking.
He has his chance, I hope he makes the best of it. As far as the comparison we will have to see if he lasts any more than the three season that Tebow did.
(ok, he said it years ago, but this thread made me think of it)
Quote:
BrandonSpikes51 ✔ @BrandonSpikes51
I’m homophobic just like I’m arachnophobic.I have nothing against homosexuals or spiders but I’d still scream if I found one in my bathtub !
4:57 PM - 10 Oct 2012
are pretty singularly focused on one thing, how to make their team better. Any player viewed as being a distraction that may hinder that is weighed against how much his skill level might also benefit the team.
It was a incredibly dumb thing for Dungy to have said, but it is simply naïve to think that many coaches likely wouldn't want to deal with the distraction Sam would bring when weighed against his talents. They are just smart enough to keep their mouths closed.
You've spent a lot of time defending 'an incredibly dumb thing…to have said…'
Perhaps those other coaches you're so sure agree just aren't, you know, dumb?
Regardless of the talent, the guy will bring with him a circus and if he happens to get cut, the team and the staff will come under unnecessary scrutiny. Didn't Jason Witlock address this a few months back too?
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
It isn't PC to be anti-homophobe.
It's bigoted to call someone a "homophobe" without really knowing what's in their hearts and how they really feel. PC crowd is very quick to judge and condemn all the while claiming to be anti-judgmental and non-discriminatory.. as long as you agree with however they feel that day.
Sam has done more in pro-football than 99.99% of the population. Good for him and as an SEC fan, I hope he carries himself well because he represents his school and his conference. As the fan of an opposing team, I can't bring myself to worry about a 7th rd pick beyond that.
RE: He really meant that the guy is not good enough Â
We really don't know what we meant but we're trying to add it up. However:
“I wouldn’t have taken him,’’ Dungy told the Tampa Tribune. “Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it. It’s not going to be totally smooth . . . things will happen." He's assuming the worst based on his ignorance and intolerance. And THAT isn't fair to a gay player.
But my point was the teams that hinted that Tebow wasn't worth dealing with because of the distraction.
Obviously any player with enough talent will find coaches that are more than willing to deal with most distractions they bring. Players with less talent not so much.
Regardless of the talent, the guy will bring with him a circus and if he happens to get cut, the team and the staff will come under unnecessary scrutiny. Didn't Jason Witlock address this a few months back too?
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
It isn't PC to be anti-homophobe.
It's bigoted to call someone a "homophobe" without really knowing what's in their hearts and how they really feel. PC crowd is very quick to judge and condemn all the while claiming to be anti-judgmental and non-discriminatory.. as long as you agree with however they feel that day.
Sam has done more in pro-football than 99.99% of the population. Good for him and as an SEC fan, I hope he carries himself well because he represents his school and his conference. As the fan of an opposing team, I can't bring myself to worry about a 7th rd pick beyond that.
Dungy has a history of it and I will end this when it is clear that if you call out intolerance, then YOU must be the intolerant one. It is actually the argument that racists are known to yammer. Have a blessed day!
will be accepted by his team as a football player. Unfortunately the media will create a circus just as they did with Tebow. There were people making fun of "Tebowing" and looking for any comment from a coach or team mate. It became a distraction. The pressure will be put on for Michael Sam to make the team. If he is not good enough and they cut him,... it will be a mess. Did they cut him because gay? The media will love all this. Michael Sam wants to become an NFL player. I don't agree with his lifestyle, that does not make me a racist, or a homophobe. I hope he makes the NFL because he is an NFL caliber player. Michael Sam DE,
Robinson was a GREAT all-around athlete; he was no doubt a front-line major league player and could play ball with anyone. That was one of the reasons Robinson was the guy chosen to break the color barrier. Monte Irvin was a superb athlete; no doubt could play major league baseball. My sense from reading about Sam is that he is a mediocre athlete, especially for the position he plays, and may not make the team.
It is much easier to weather the possible media / other storms with a hall of fame caliber player that is helping your team win. I am not saying that is fair but it is reality.
People don't have to agree with a homosexual lifestyle. Â
The thing that they shouldn't be allowed to do is to couch non-equality of opportunity in terms of "character risks", since the players are not choosing to be different.
It would be akin to calling an epileptic a character risk in the locker room because he may seize.
I'm not defending him. I thought Randy was using the Tebow comparison and responded, you then responded to that response so I answered you.
It was dumb, I just think people are naïve if they think Dungy is unique.
steve, as I just posted, I think Dungy has a bit of a history. And also, if I'm a law-abiding citizen and your religion (supposedly--even though it doesn't) tells you that you shouldn't treat me fairly, well, I have a problem with that. It is pretty straightforward.
I'm not defending him. I thought Randy was using the Tebow comparison and responded, you then responded to that response so I answered you.
It was dumb, I just think people are naïve if they think Dungy is unique.
It took a number of posts before you called it 'a dumb thing to have said'.
Meanwhile, your first post still looks like a defense, because you think he's just saying (as you repeat above) what (you believe) everyone else is thinking.
Quote:
There are likely many coaches who would view it
steve in ky : 2:46 pm : link : reply
as a potential distraction not worth dealing with. I seriously doubt he is alone in this regard. The difference is the majority that feel that way won't admit it.
Meanwhile, the most I've heard Michael Sam's name since draft today is today.
So how's Rams camp going? You must know with all the non-stop, distracting media coverage.
will be accepted by his team as a football player. Unfortunately the media will create a circus just as they did with Tebow. There were people making fun of "Tebowing" and looking for any comment from a coach or team mate. It became a distraction. The pressure will be put on for Michael Sam to make the team. If he is not good enough and they cut him,... it will be a mess. Did they cut him because gay? The media will love all this. Michael Sam wants to become an NFL player. I don't agree with his lifestyle, that does not make me a racist, or a homophobe. I hope he makes the NFL because he is an NFL caliber player. Michael Sam DE,
"Lifestyle?"
That indicates you think his being gay is his CHOICE - the very thing that makes homophobes ignorant and ridiculous.
will be accepted by his team as a football player. Unfortunately the media will create a circus just as they did with Tebow. There were people making fun of "Tebowing" and looking for any comment from a coach or team mate. It became a distraction.
Right. A distraction that Tebow, a QB (rather high profile position in the NFL) brought to himself.
We still have seen how Sam will behave on the field. Perhaps he'll just do his job and then jog off. Like most of the other guys.
have *not* seen how Sam will behave on the field Â
and strikes me as just laying in wait for someone to slip up with a word here or there similar to what our great (sarcasm) media.
I like girls and presumably did not learn that trait. But living my life trying to get some stank on the hang-low seems to be my "lifestyle" albeit one I was born into, is it not?
Dungy stuck up for Vick and getting his second shot back in the Nfl and the circus that followed him. But wouldnt take a chance on Sam??? sounds funny to me
RE: RE: RE: RE: this is not as bad as the PC crowd is making it Â
Regardless of the talent, the guy will bring with him a circus and if he happens to get cut, the team and the staff will come under unnecessary scrutiny. Didn't Jason Witlock address this a few months back too?
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
It isn't PC to be anti-homophobe.
It's bigoted to call someone a "homophobe" without really knowing what's in their hearts and how they really feel. PC crowd is very quick to judge and condemn all the while claiming to be anti-judgmental and non-discriminatory.. as long as you agree with however they feel that day.
Sam has done more in pro-football than 99.99% of the population. Good for him and as an SEC fan, I hope he carries himself well because he represents his school and his conference. As the fan of an opposing team, I can't bring myself to worry about a 7th rd pick beyond that.
Dungy has a history of it and I will end this when it is clear that if you call out intolerance, then YOU must be the intolerant one. It is actually the argument that racists are known to yammer. Have a blessed day!
So, it's intolerant to disagree with you.. That sounds awfully judgmental...
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: this is not as bad as the PC crowd is making it Â
Regardless of the talent, the guy will bring with him a circus and if he happens to get cut, the team and the staff will come under unnecessary scrutiny. Didn't Jason Witlock address this a few months back too?
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
It isn't PC to be anti-homophobe.
It's bigoted to call someone a "homophobe" without really knowing what's in their hearts and how they really feel. PC crowd is very quick to judge and condemn all the while claiming to be anti-judgmental and non-discriminatory.. as long as you agree with however they feel that day.
Sam has done more in pro-football than 99.99% of the population. Good for him and as an SEC fan, I hope he carries himself well because he represents his school and his conference. As the fan of an opposing team, I can't bring myself to worry about a 7th rd pick beyond that.
Dungy has a history of it and I will end this when it is clear that if you call out intolerance, then YOU must be the intolerant one. It is actually the argument that racists are known to yammer. Have a blessed day!
So, it's intolerant to disagree with you.. That sounds awfully judgmental...
I'm not defending him. I thought Randy was using the Tebow comparison and responded, you then responded to that response so I answered you.
It was dumb, I just think people are naïve if they think Dungy is unique.
It took a number of posts before you called it 'a dumb thing to have said'.
Meanwhile, your first post still looks like a defense, because you think he's just saying (as you repeat above) what (you believe) everyone else is thinking.
Quote:
There are likely many coaches who would view it
steve in ky : 2:46 pm : link : reply
as a potential distraction not worth dealing with. I seriously doubt he is alone in this regard. The difference is the majority that feel that way won't admit it.
Meanwhile, the most I've heard Michael Sam's name since draft today is today.
So how's Rams camp going? You must know with all the non-stop, distracting media coverage.
My first post was simply pointing out what some people seemed to be missing and that I doubted he would be the lone coach who felt that way only the others wouldn't admit it. By suggesting they know better than to admit it implied (or at least I thought it did) it was a dumb thing to say. Sorry if it I didn't show what you feel was an appropriate on top of a soap box shout about it.
I don't agree with his lifestyle, that does not make me a racist, or a homophobe. I hope he makes the NFL because he is an NFL caliber player. Michael Sam DE,
What does it make you then?
What does "I don't agree with his lifestyle" even mean? You don't agree that he likes dick? You agree that he likes dick but that he shouldn't be allowed to like dick?
What part of his "lifestyle" has any effect on your life?
Can't quite deal with it. Listen to all the arguments and always find myself on the wrong side and don't want to do anything about it.
Label me anything you want (I'll probably agree with you) I don't think he belongs in a locker room and I don't want to watch him play. Must add I'm not religious so i don't even have that excuse. I don't think he should be prohibited either, but there's lots of things that are legal and that I recognize have a right to exist that I don't endorse.
I almost feel ashamed of the way I feel and I find Robinson noble and his cause marvelously just and find nothing like that here and find the comparison odious, though the strange mixed up things is, even as I write that I understand the argument comparing it to Robinson.
I am still allowed to label certain things or behaviors as loathsome. I guess.???
The Tebow comparison is stupid to begin with. Making attempts at trying to legitimize that comparison makes you even dumber, and by proxie makes me dumber for having read it and having my poor brain process it. Sam hasn't taken an NFL snap yet, he's buried on the depth chart, and is a guy trying to get his career started. Tebow isn't getting a chance, because he sucks, and he actually does bring a distraction to the table. Any team that signs him for depth would only be inviting legions of whacky Tebow fanatics calling for him to start. You think Mark Sanchez was comfortable during Tebow's year with the Jets?
I don't get why some people go out of their way to say they don't agree with a certain lifestyle. It's basically akin to prefacing something with "no offense" or "not to be racist", only to follow it up with a statement that is obscenely offensive or racist. How about not giving a shit about what 2 consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors?
Can't quite deal with it. Listen to all the arguments and always find myself on the wrong side and don't want to do anything about it.
Label me anything you want (I'll probably agree with you) I don't think he belongs in a locker room and I don't want to watch him play. Must add I'm not religious so i don't even have that excuse. I don't think he should be prohibited either, but there's lots of things that are legal and that I recognize have a right to exist that I don't endorse.
I almost feel ashamed of the way I feel and I find Robinson noble and his cause marvelously just and find nothing like that here and find the comparison odious, though the strange mixed up things is, even as I write that I understand the argument comparing it to Robinson.
I am still allowed to label certain things or behaviors as loathsome. I guess.???
I guess I kind of "get" where you're coming from.
I find guys that are into fat chicks to be loathsome, too (the attracted to fat chick part, not the actual person).
Of course, it doesn't have any impact on my life, so I wouldn't mind watching a guy that's into big chicks play football.
As the article says, he was the first African American head coach to win a Super Bowl and authored a book about equality in coaching.
That does make him a hypocrite.
Hell, you don't have to agree with someone's lifestyle but how about just having the equal opportunity to WORK regardless of the life you live away from your job (stripper/porn teachers excluded).
Oh sorry. You're gay, you can't work here. Really??
But as someone else said earlier in this thread, Dungy is yesterday's news.
You know what I mean. Point is just that it shouldn't matter who he loves or what he does outside of his job performance as long as he's not breaking any rules or laws.
with people "being gay", remember that your understanding it or condoning it doesn't factor into them leading peaceful, productive lives in the way that seems natural to them.
Your reactions are only a disapproval and condemnation which can potentially hurt people just living their lives. Further, associating a religion to it compounds that bigotry to have a misguided corroboration which doesn't exist. And quite frankly ignores another part of that religion about judging others.'
How about spending more energy on condoning happy relationships between good people who are living peaceful and productive lives? No matter what their orientation.
is a way to say that it's a choice without saying it explicitly and being ridiculed for it.
For the rest, it's probably just an anachronistic saying without much thought into what it really says (like using derogatory slang words like retard or gay).
Not read the thread but if I was a head coach and a control freak as most are I would avoid a projected fringe player who might cause a distraction and that means any reason which the player has himself caused to bring so much attention upon himself and a controversy if he gets cut.
RE: No, I dont know why you're trying to put words in my mouth. Â
pretty much part of NFL life? Arrests, suspensions, baby mama drama, etc. aren't distractions? I'm quite sure Michael Vick's arrest was pretty disruptive to the Falcons' football operations.
Dungy is a quack.
I would ask you to explain which aspect of my life you Â
don't agree with. But I thought that was pretty well established here.
When I said "lifestyle" I didn't mean that people shouldn't be gay. I just meant that part of their life along with any other, shouldn't matter even if you don't agree with it.
Not read the thread but if I was a head coach and a control freak as most are I would avoid a projected fringe player who might cause a distraction and that means any reason which the player has himself caused to bring so much attention upon himself and a controversy if he gets cut.
for supporting Vick doesn't make much sense. If Vick was still involved in dog fighting, I don't think Dungy would be supporting him. That's more of being supportive of someone who did jail time for his crimes and is looking to turn his life around. I'm no Vick fan, if fack he's one of my least favorite players in the league, but I do beleive in giving people second chances.
This is handled quite simply at the first team meeting:
"When you're asked about anyone's sexual orientation or how anyone is fitting in to the locker room, the answer to the first is that it is nobody's business but that particular person and the answer to the second is that we keep what goes on in the locker room in the locker room."
"Feel free to add a sly wink when you answer the second question."
Tony Dungy is not allowed to say he wouldn't want to draft a marginally talented player and state his reason for picking one player over another.
I have no doubt that if Michael Sam was a 1st to 3rd round player, Dungy would deal with the media circus that is about to unfold, but as 7th round talent, there are about 100 other people available that he would not have to answer the same stupid daily questions about, or if he was cut, answer those same stupid questions about how much his being a homosexual had to do with it. And, sorry to say it, but that poor guy (Sam) is going to catch some hell in that locker room or be ostracized by some of his teammates for who he is. That kid Martin in Miami was bullied over his weak personality and the coaching staff did nothing to stop it. Now the Rams coaching staff is going to have to be on top of what is going on in that locker room. So with 90 players in that locker room, that staff will need to keep a special eye on one player to make sure he isn't abused.
Traditional marriage can be reserved for whomever the relevant religious authority deems fit.
But everyone is entered into a civil union (homosexual or heterosexual) with equal benefits for all. You are formally tied together as spouses by civil unions, and not by marriage. Marriage will solely be a religious institution that yields NO earthly benefits, solely spiritual.
If you don't want to accord equal civil union benefits to all; not only do you fail at a separation of church and state, but you discriminate.
Tony Dungy is not allowed to say he wouldn't want to draft a marginally talented player and state his reason for picking one player over another.
I have no doubt that if Michael Sam was a 1st to 3rd round player, Dungy would deal with the media circus that is about to unfold, but as 7th round talent, there are about 100 other people available that he would not have to answer the same stupid daily questions about, or if he was cut, answer those same stupid questions about how much his being a homosexual had to do with it. And, sorry to say it, but that poor guy (Sam) is going to catch some hell in that locker room or be ostracized by some of his teammates for who he is. That kid Martin in Miami was bullied over his weak personality and the coaching staff did nothing to stop it. Now the Rams coaching staff is going to have to be on top of what is going on in that locker room. So with 90 players in that locker room, that staff will need to keep a special eye on one player to make sure he isn't abused.
Pretty sure he's allowed to say whatever he wants.
Also pretty sure that we're allowed to call him a hypocrite for saying it.
Not venturing any further into the political side but isn't that a form of discrimanation due to someones sexual preference?..And most of them use the Bible as defending the idea that's it's a union between a man and a woman?
Some of the posts on here are indicative of why people feel the Â
need to hide their sexuality. It's ridiculous thinking. And yes, I judge and am intolerant of that thinking.
If you got any compassion, interest in justice and are at all open hearted/minded, you're rotting for Michael Sam because he repents an opportunity for people to be treated as they are. Not just when they beat women, kill dogs, kill people driving drunk, do a bunch of coke they ask the cops if they know who they are…all accepting Michael Sam requires is understanding his sexual orientation is different. Not his 'lifestyle' or whatever that's code for…just who he has sex with. Because that's so fucking important. Anyone 'distracted' by that has issues of their own to work out.
Not venturing any further into the political side but isn't that a form of discrimanation due to someones sexual preference?..And most of them use the Bible as defending the idea that's it's a union between a man and a woman?
Cool, got that.
See kicker's response above.
Also, IIRC traditionally marriage has been a state institution, not a religious one. It's about property rights more than anything else (or was, or is, although folks ascribe whatever meaning they want to it- much like folks do with just about everything)
The thing is, you can't make everyone attach the same meaning to something. Especially when the meaning is (for some) religious- there's that whole pesky "freedom of religion" thing.
An NFL coach, I would be pragmatic, not a social reformer. The whole situation changes for same guy with more potential. Exactly the same for that Eagles receiver who probably would have been cut if he had less talent. No I am not saying gay is the same as racist statements. It is the possible headaches it could cause me. You look at each player and make a cost benefit analysis.
An NFL coach, I would be pragmatic, not a social reformer. The whole situation changes for same guy with more potential. Exactly the same for that Eagles receiver who probably would have been cut if he had less talent. No I am not saying gay is the same as racist statements. It is the possible headaches it could cause me. You look at each player and make a cost benefit analysis.
I thought the same thing when I was glad the Yankees didn't have the first black player.
I'll take Tony Dungy over some of the rightious people on this thread who think its fine to call people vile names because they disagree with you as a matter of conscience. I disagree with Dungy on the matter of homosexuality, but I don't see him condemning gays, calling them vile names or wishing them harm. His religion tells him (wrongly IMO) that homosexuality is something to be overcome, through prayer or whatever. I don't detect any hatefulness at all, just misguided but sincerely held beliefs. These beliefs should not be accepted, but neither should he be the object of hatred and vile names. Do you not see the hippocracy of spewing hatred and vile names because you believe someone is guilty of .... wait ... hatred and vile beliefs?
And admiring Jackie Robinson while not wanting, as a coach, a distraction on your team are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that as a coach, he would not have signed Robinson because of the distraction while nonetheless admiring him. Not saying this is the case, but some of you are drawing false comparisons here. And when he said , as a coach, he would "talk to" Sam about the homosexuality, it sounds not much different than the council he offered Vick, whom he also regarded as someone who had lost his way.
The bottom line is that I don't buy in to the idea that "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore you are a no-good scumbag cretin". How about "probably a nice guy, but he's dead wrong about this. I hope he wakes up soon." Nah, not on BBI.
Robinson was a lot more talented than Sam. If Sam was projected as a talented starter, I would have welcomed him be drafted by the Giants. Like it or not, most of us live using a cost benefit analysis to make decisions.
Sam deserves a chance to play, but it's a typical NIMBY attitude. "Things will happen" and "lifestyle" are just vague code words expressing him not wanting a homosexual on his team and him not wanting to do his job of coaching his team and making sure that they treat Sam equally.
He comes across as just another bigot hiding behind religion.
I'll take Tony Dungy over some of the rightious people on this thread who think its fine to call people vile names because they disagree with you as a matter of conscience. I disagree with Dungy on the matter of homosexuality, but I don't see him condemning gays, calling them vile names or wishing them harm. His religion tells him (wrongly IMO) that homosexuality is something to be overcome, through prayer or whatever. I don't detect any hatefulness at all, just misguided but sincerely held beliefs. These beliefs should not be accepted, but neither should he be the object of hatred and vile names. Do you not see the hippocracy of spewing hatred and vile names because you believe someone is guilty of .... wait ... hatred and vile beliefs?
And admiring Jackie Robinson while not wanting, as a coach, a distraction on your team are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that as a coach, he would not have signed Robinson because of the distraction while nonetheless admiring him. Not saying this is the case, but some of you are drawing false comparisons here. And when he said , as a coach, he would "talk to" Sam about the homosexuality, it sounds not much different than the council he offered Vick, whom he also regarded as someone who had lost his way.
The bottom line is that I don't buy in to the idea that "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore you are a no-good scumbag cretin". How about "probably a nice guy, but he's dead wrong about this. I hope he wakes up soon." Nah, not on BBI.
This post is misguided, but likely sincerely believed.
So, anything that is sincerely held, can't be hateful? Sorry, but your post is a lot of nonsense - while the world has a lot of gray, it some times offers us clear glimpses of right and wrong.
Would you have a problem with people describing as a racist an otherwise decent man who had a "sincerely held belief" than African-Americans were inferior?
I'm just happy that I'm on the correct side of history, and that these dinosaurs will die out sooner rather than later.
If it causes some people to not read my posts, fine.
Some ideas shouldn't be tolerated simply because they are opinions. Discrimination is one of those. People would balk at allowing the Stalins if the world to express themselves, but other (supposed lesser) forms of discrimination are acceptable.
that makes this country great is the idea that Sam could become the first openly gay NFL player while NOT being a superstar talent.
Of course teams would have taken Sam if he had Jackie Robinson's level of talent because teams want to win and they overlook or make exceptions for things they otherwise condemn or don't accept). Progress is made when teams and good-natured/decent coaches/owners give the opportunities to those when they are merely as qualified.
in discourse with you, but yet again you're way off the mark. The term "racist" would be appropriate because thinking that a race is inferior is the very definition of racist. However, if someone sincerely held that belief and yet showed no hatred and crusaded for equal rights for minorities, i would not regard that person with hatred but would offer rational argument and evidence that he was wrong. The problem is that you cannot separate "wrong" views from hatred. There are ignorant views which should be subject to rational argument and yes, there are views that are hateful and those should be condemned. And that's as far as I'm going to go with you. Have a nice day.
who view the "distraction" as Sam in the showers, furiously masturbating while the others have no escape from this hell.
And that saddens me.
You know it never entered my mind that "distraction" had anything to do with him being gay per se. All it ever meant to me was media circus. In that vein, I agree with Big Al. I don't care about his personal life but I wouldn't want the attention. I would sign the third or fourth gay player or even Sam 4 years into a productive career, but I think he's have to be super special for me to sign him him first. I don't think that's so much bigotry as it is cowardice.
Honestly, I will have to re-read the thread, because I don't see people calling for Dungy's head. They're calling him a hypocrite and ignorant and a bigot.
I guess the latter could be construed as "hateful", but a spade is a spade, no? Or is it something about a cigar? Oral fetish, perhaps? Wait, that's totally off topic (sort of).
I'll take Tony Dungy over some of the rightious people on this thread who think its fine to call people vile names because they disagree with you as a matter of conscience. I disagree with Dungy on the matter of homosexuality, but I don't see him condemning gays, calling them vile names or wishing them harm. His religion tells him (wrongly IMO) that homosexuality is something to be overcome, through prayer or whatever. I don't detect any hatefulness at all, just misguided but sincerely held beliefs. These beliefs should not be accepted, but neither should he be the object of hatred and vile names. Do you not see the hippocracy of spewing hatred and vile names because you believe someone is guilty of .... wait ... hatred and vile beliefs?
And admiring Jackie Robinson while not wanting, as a coach, a distraction on your team are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that as a coach, he would not have signed Robinson because of the distraction while nonetheless admiring him. Not saying this is the case, but some of you are drawing false comparisons here. And when he said , as a coach, he would "talk to" Sam about the homosexuality, it sounds not much different than the council he offered Vick, whom he also regarded as someone who had lost his way.
The bottom line is that I don't buy in to the idea that "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore you are a no-good scumbag cretin". How about "probably a nice guy, but he's dead wrong about this. I hope he wakes up soon." Nah, not on BBI.
Mike, this is bordering on not being able to call out intolerant people because that would make you intolerant.
Dungy isn't calling out gays outwardly but there's a track record there of his disapproval so what we're seeing is the same veiled wording which is cowardly IMO. But either way, I don't see eye to eye with people who are anti-gay, whether they soften their wording or are more outward with it. Prejudice and bigotry are just that and are uttered by fearful, ignorant people.
RE: RE: $10 says there is a sizeable minority here Â
who view the "distraction" as Sam in the showers, furiously masturbating while the others have no escape from this hell.
And that saddens me.
You know it never entered my mind that "distraction" had anything to do with him being gay per se. All it ever meant to me was media circus. In that vein, I agree with Big Al. I don't care about his personal life but I wouldn't want the attention. I would sign the third or fourth gay player or even Sam 4 years into a productive career, but I think he's have to be super special for me to sign him him first. I don't think that's so much bigotry as it is cowardice.
What does the "media circus" entail? Reporters asking stupid questions? They do that at every press conference. I coach or team that can't handle that has no business being in the NFL.
The horror of being asked questions twice a week. I know I could never do it. Imagine having to say, "No comment" multiple times in an hour.
I'm just happy that I'm on the correct side of history, and that these dinosaurs will die out sooner rather than later.
If it causes some people to not read my posts, fine.
Some ideas shouldn't be tolerated simply because they are opinions. Discrimination is one of those. People would balk at allowing the Stalins if the world to express themselves, but other (supposed lesser) forms of discrimination are acceptable.
Not in the world that we are evolving towards.
I never said that all ideas should be tolerated, they should be subject to scrutiny, and if found wanting, should be discredited. I just don't think that hating a person who is not hateful is a virtuous position. Again, bringing up Stalin ... that is a purely hateful person rife with hateful acts and deserving of hate. To compare him to Tony Dungy would be way off base IMHO
I'm just happy that I'm on the correct side of history, and that these dinosaurs will die out sooner rather than later.
If it causes some people to not read my posts, fine.
Some ideas shouldn't be tolerated simply because they are opinions. Discrimination is one of those. People would balk at allowing the Stalins if the world to express themselves, but other (supposed lesser) forms of discrimination are acceptable.
Not in the world that we are evolving towards.
I never said that all ideas should be tolerated, they should be subject to scrutiny, and if found wanting, should be discredited. I just don't think that hating a person who is not hateful is a virtuous position. Again, bringing up Stalin ... that is a purely hateful person rife with hateful acts and deserving of hate. To compare him to Tony Dungy would be way off base IMHO
Why? Simply because you draw the line of intolerance at a much higher threshold doesn't mean I need to find that acceptable.
Stalin at his core was intolerant. Dungy may be accepting of reformed prisoners, but intolerance of homosexuals is just as telling on his character as on others.
In other words, there is no rational basis on which his intolerance stands, other than a straying from the historical roots of what his religion used to stand for.
I wouldn't have been a party to spygate or bountygate Â
so that's not relevant. I wouldn't have been the first to sign Vick and not because of his criminal behavior per se...frankly that wouldn't factor into my decision at all. But I wouldn't permit a single question that wasn't about the game and I would do everything I could to create an environment where none would be asked.
I, too, don't quite understand this media circus that is supposed to be happening as a result of one player. New York sports teams are bombarded with media questions moreso than other cities because of the market. After every Giants game, coaches are hounded with questions, and those questions continue all week long. Isn't that already a media circus? We live in a world with 24/7 sports channels and social media that explodes as BREAKING NEWS with frenzy whenever there is a rumor that SOMETHING is REPORTED that it MAY happen SOON.
Hell, the Super Bowl is the biggest sports event in the country and it determines NFL's champion. And the NFL specifically creates a media circus for the event. They find an entire convention center to to create a media spectactle.
Mike, this is bordering on not being able to call out intolerant people because that would make you intolerant.
I don't think so. If you think a view is intolerant, by all means say so. I'm having trouble with spewing hatred and saying its ok 'cause you're wrong. Now, if you direct hatred at an obviously hateful person that's something else. The problem with that is what we would define as hateful. I didn't see anything hateful about Dungy, just misguided beliefs that should be scrutinized.
I think there is a distinction between media circus about football Â
so that's not relevant. I wouldn't have been the first to sign Vick and not because of his criminal behavior per se...frankly that wouldn't factor into my decision at all. But I wouldn't permit a single question that wasn't about the game and I would do everything I could to create an environment where none would be asked.
Of course it's relevant.
People brought up the notion that this will be a media circus. There are numerous examples where other things which are momentous occasions in the NFL haven't led to the team suffering from this so-called circus.
As you yourself pointed out coaches have a way of dealing with this. To think that some won't be able to handle it isn't the correct view in my opinion
in discourse with you, but yet again you're way off the mark. The term "racist" would be appropriate because thinking that a race is inferior is the very definition of racist. However, if someone sincerely held that belief and yet showed no hatred and crusaded for equal rights for minorities, i would not regard that person with hatred but would offer rational argument and evidence that he was wrong. The problem is that you cannot separate "wrong" views from hatred. There are ignorant views which should be subject to rational argument and yes, there are views that are hateful and those should be condemned. And that's as far as I'm going to go with you. Have a nice day.
I had no idea you were avoiding me, thank you for that, I am certainly smarter for it and please be more diligent about it going forward.
Just to be clear, it's because you think you saw a UFO, right? LOL.
I don't think so. If you think a view is intolerant, by all means say so. I'm having trouble with spewing hatred and saying its ok 'cause you're wrong. Now, if you direct hatred at an obviously hateful person that's something else. The problem with that is what we would define as hateful. I didn't see anything hateful about Dungy, just misguided beliefs that should be scrutinized.
actions speak louder than words, River Mike. just because Dungy is being gentlemanly about it doesn't mean that it's not hateful. he's saying that it it were up to him, he'd exclude this player from his locker room, and not on the basis of whether or not he's good enough to play. he may do that with a smile and a handshake, but at the end of the day, it's still discrimination and it's still exclusion and it's still a stigma that he's perpetuating and endorsing.
he may not be screaming "FAG!" but his actions most certainly do.
Even if you were correct in that there woud be no adverse consequences Â
If I perceived that there would be a distraction and it might impact my team on the field, even if it was only my own perception or even my own paranoia, and if it was controllable or avoidable, then I'm doing it. And it's not limited to Sam. A DUI, a wife-beating, a nude photoshoot...whatever...if it's a marginal player whose replaceable with another marginal player...that's what I'm doing.
RE: RE: RE: People can be disgusted with my calling Â
I'm just happy that I'm on the correct side of history, and that these dinosaurs will die out sooner rather than later.
If it causes some people to not read my posts, fine.
Some ideas shouldn't be tolerated simply because they are opinions. Discrimination is one of those. People would balk at allowing the Stalins if the world to express themselves, but other (supposed lesser) forms of discrimination are acceptable.
Not in the world that we are evolving towards.
I never said that all ideas should be tolerated, they should be subject to scrutiny, and if found wanting, should be discredited. I just don't think that hating a person who is not hateful is a virtuous position. Again, bringing up Stalin ... that is a purely hateful person rife with hateful acts and deserving of hate. To compare him to Tony Dungy would be way off base IMHO
Why? Simply because you draw the line of intolerance at a much higher threshold doesn't mean I need to find that acceptable.
Stalin at his core was intolerant. Dungy may be accepting of reformed prisoners, but intolerance of homosexuals is just as telling on his character as on others.
In other words, there is no rational basis on which his intolerance stands, other than a straying from the historical roots of what his religion used to stand for.
I guess we'll just disagree. I didn't see anything about Dungy that indicated intolerance. He just said that as a coach he would not want the distraction. That indicates an intolerance to distractions to me, not intolerance to gays. Now, of course we know his religion doesn't believe that homosexuality is accepted by God, but I haven't seen him advocate harming or condemning gays in any way. I know we're not going to see eye to eye on this, but I just see hate often too easily accepted as rightious.
But that's not what coaches are doing. They are choosing to allow distractions that are the result of conscious choice by the players . Being homosexual is not a conscious choice, and is being equated differently.
I have no problem with coaches being consistent. Dungy is not.
on the word "hate." I really do. I don't think Dungy hates gay people like the Westboro Baptist Church, or like the way that little girl was screaming "GOODBYE JEWS" in Schindler's List. I think Dungy would interact rather politely with gay people if he runs into them.
I just think the views he holds sincerely are ignorant and biogted. And while not intentional, it causes his opinions to be those of a discriminatory nature. The problem is that in this day and age, and with Dungy's life having traveled to many different cities and being exposed to many cultures and being tied into the "modern day," there is no excuse for him to still hold those ignorant beliefs.
So while his views may not be rooted in hatred, the end result is the same.
I don't think so. If you think a view is intolerant, by all means say so. I'm having trouble with spewing hatred and saying its ok 'cause you're wrong. Now, if you direct hatred at an obviously hateful person that's something else. The problem with that is what we would define as hateful. I didn't see anything hateful about Dungy, just misguided beliefs that should be scrutinized.
actions speak louder than words, River Mike. just because Dungy is being gentlemanly about it doesn't mean that it's not hateful. he's saying that it it were up to him, he'd exclude this player from his locker room, and not on the basis of whether or not he's good enough to play. he may do that with a smile and a handshake, but at the end of the day, it's still discrimination and it's still exclusion and it's still a stigma that he's perpetuating and endorsing.
he may not be screaming "FAG!" but his actions most certainly do.
M, I won't argue with that. None of us knows what is in his heart, we can only go by his actions and words. You see hate there, I don't. You see harm there and that may very well be.
anywhere because you have to look at the value of the individual player. I think Big Al mentioned a cost benefit analysis. Despite what I just said, I actually would draft Aikman or Peyton (if they were gay) media circus be damned. I'm not drafting Sam. I would be cutting my UDFA caught with weed but I'm giving LT a raise.
on the word "hate." I really do. I don't think Dungy hates gay people like the Westboro Baptist Church, or like the way that little girl was screaming "GOODBYE JEWS" in Schindler's List. I think Dungy would interact rather politely with gay people if he runs into them.
I just think the views he holds sincerely are ignorant and biogted. And while not intentional, it causes his opinions to be those of a discriminatory nature. The problem is that in this day and age, and with Dungy's life having traveled to many different cities and being exposed to many cultures and being tied into the "modern day," there is no excuse for him to still hold those ignorant beliefs.
So while his views may not be rooted in hatred, the end result is the same.
I agree. My only point is that a view held in ignorance should be countered with intelligence. Too often we assume hatred on someone's part and respond with hatred.
labeling it as hatred might be an overreach. It could be pure ignorance, which is correctable, but I find it hard to accept that a man in Dungy's position is simply ignorant. I think it's more likely he's being willfully ignorant, and that would be just as bad as it being motivated by hate, IMHO.
I think an organization in the NFL may legitimately be concerned about the "distraction" that Michael Sam would bring to the team. Just like in the case of Tebow, it's a guarantee that fans and the media will be clamoring to see this guy get out on the field . . . . and he may not be good enough to be in that position.
There's going to be a lot of outside pressure (maybe even internal pressure) to get Sam playing time, and I don't think its healthy for a team to have to deal with that. The coaches need to be made as free as possible to make personnel decisions.
Tim Tebow in Denver was a circus - nobody should argue that, or that it wasn't healthy for Denver. I think Sam presents the same situation potentially. The only way it doesn't become an issue is if he's talented enough to warrant the playing time . . . and as of right now noone knows if he'll be a good NFL player.
anywhere because you have to look at the value of the individual player. I think Big Al mentioned a cost benefit analysis. Despite what I just said, I actually would draft Aikman or Peyton (if they were gay) media circus be damned. I'm not drafting Sam. I would be cutting my UDFA caught with weed but I'm giving LT a raise.
Consistency is the key for any cost-benefit analysis. Without any consistency to the costs you have no reliable analysis.
Further you need an actual quantifiable cost to drafting Sam. Or is the cost to drafting Sam any different from the cost of drafting other players who have their warts. This is the relevant cost. That being homosexual is a much higher cost and then any other problem that other players have. Using steroids smoking or any other examples. All players have warts.
And we must compare where Sam was drafted to other players available. A cost-benefit analysis is not done on a first round talent compared to a seventh round draft pick. So what were assuming with this analysis is that Sam was significantly different from other players drafted around him.
the problem is that it is 2014 and we live in America and Dungy has lived all over the country and has been exposed to modern life and exposed to free ideas. Plus, he lived through the Civil Rights era.
If Tony Dungy grew up and lived his entire life in poverty in a homogenous area with no access to education or exposure to different cultures, then I could understand that his ignorance were sincere and needed to be met with intelligence to show him that he's wrong.
However, given his station in life, I can only attribute his ignorance and bigoted viewpoints as those that he chooses to maintain.
so, if you have the slightest inkling that there will be non-football questions or even questions about an insignificant person, at the expense of your time, information about your team that you want to convey, altered focus of other players...even if it's true only in your head, then why bother? You can get another equally insignificant person without disturbing your imagination at all. Isn't that the smarter route?
the problem is that it is 2014 and we live in America and Dungy has lived all over the country and has been exposed to modern life and exposed to free ideas. Plus, he lived through the Civil Rights era.
If Tony Dungy grew up and lived his entire life in poverty in a homogenous area with no access to education or exposure to different cultures, then I could understand that his ignorance were sincere and needed to be met with intelligence to show him that he's wrong.
However, given his station in life, I can only attribute his ignorance and bigoted viewpoints as those that he chooses to maintain.
who point out that the "too much media attention" card is way overstated in this situation. This is the NFL, media and public attention will always be a part of life for coaches and players. Michael Sam will get more attention than most initially but after a certain point that attention will decrease. There's only so many "Gay" questions you can ask every week before you realize that nothing new changed from a week ago. It's not as if Michael Sam will be a topic on PTI every single day. This is an ADD culture and we'll stop truly caring about him soon enough just like we stopped truly caring about Jason Collins in the NBA.
So I call BS on that. Any coach worthy of an NFL job should have absolutely no problem handling the media attention of Sam. Answering a couple of questions about Sam is really going to cause that much of an issue for the coach? GTFO here with that excuse.
I just don't believe the media aspect of this. A Professional coach should be able to handle that no problem. So I feel like what this is really about is the locker room. And that's what this issue is really about. How comfortable his teammates will be with integrating an open homosexual into their team and lives. How comfortable they will be with him in the showers. How comfortable the really religious players (and there are a lot of them) will be with a teammate who openly goes against their beliefs.
This is a team chemistry issue not some BS media attention issue like some of these guys are hiding behind. Coaches who think like Dungy are lazy cowards who clearly don't want the added responsibility of trying to deal with potential team chemistry issues. Dungy is nothing more than a hypocritical coward.
I don't actually think you have an irrelevant point. This is the first real day of training camp and we have way more interest in this thread. And we are not anywhere involved in the situation.
I don't actually think you have an irrelevant point. This is the first real day of training camp and we have way more interest in this thread. And we are not anywhere involved in the situation.
Controversy is always a big draw. Wait 'til we have some controversy in camp:)
so, if you have the slightest inkling that there will be non-football questions or even questions about an insignificant person, at the expense of your time, information about your team that you want to convey, altered focus of other players...even if it's true only in your head, then why bother? You can get another equally insignificant person without disturbing your imagination at all. Isn't that the smarter route?
This assumes that these players won't have their own issues that you will have to deal with.
People always forget that Michael Sam played at a large SEC conference school and won several awards for being a premier player. That has to factor in compared to some special-teams player from a lesser-known school.
You can't simplify a cost-benefit analysis of these issues simply because they lesson the argument that Sam will be a huge impediment to you as a coach.
so, if you have the slightest inkling that there will be non-football questions or even questions about an insignificant person, at the expense of your time, information about your team that you want to convey, altered focus of other players...even if it's true only in your head, then why bother? You can get another equally insignificant person without disturbing your imagination at all. Isn't that the smarter route?
Also the supposed wart that Sam has is well known to the coach. Whereas the issues with other comparable players maybe not known at this point. That's an advantage for Sam in an analysis.
I don't know why being deeply religious equals nutjob. Â
would give a press conference and tell the media something to the extent of
"We believe in equal rights and we do not discriminate in the LOCATION MASCOT organization. As such, Michael Sam will be evaluated purely as a football player. Not as a gay football player, not as a black football player, but as a football player wearing #96. Mr. Sam's personal life, as with any other player, will only be relevant should he violate the team's or league's personal conduct policy.
We hope that the media will share in our respect for Mr. Sam's equal rights and will treat him accordingly, evaluating him and his place on the team purely from a football perspective. As such, the team will not answer questions regarding Michael Sam's sexuality as doing so would be singling him out for his identity and not treating him as we would any other player.
for Dungy to just lie and say he'd love Sam on his team and then just not draft him like most GM's did/would have done.
On one hand his honesty is commendable, but on the other hand it's a little sad he feels that way.
And it's also ironic that he is honest with this particular issue and get blasted for being a phony. If he were being phony he probably would have done what I suggested. He might be a phony in some areas, but he can hardly be accused of that with regards to this topic.
you won't get an answer on that..Same way i wouldn't get an answeer on whether anyone would ask Tebow that question..because if was deeply as his persona says he is, he would have the same view of Dungy..
you won't get an answer on that..Same way i wouldn't get an answeer on whether anyone would ask Tebow that question..because if was deeply as his persona says he is, he would have the same view of Dungy..
I think Tebow has been associated with anti-gay groups, but there are a number of religious people who are tolerant and it's a bit unfair to homogenize religious people's thoughts on homosexuality.
Perhaps I'm misreading your last sentence, though, and you intended something differently than the way I read it.
I think Dungy's religious views may be the reason he would not put up with Sam, not necessarily the possible distractions, although if Sam were as good as Peyton Manning, I wonder if he would waiver and be fine with him on the team.
It would be great if a HoF level player at the beginning of his career came out, although I do wonder why "coming out" matters because I believe the NFL players for the most part would be fine with it. The few stragglers won't make a difference. On any team, there will be players who dislike other players for any reason. I am sure some disliked Tebow for his views.
I think there is a huge distinction many on this thread seem to be missing.
And that is: Dungy didn't say he we would avoid drafting Sam because he's gay. He said he'd avoid drafting him because of the distractions and issues that would follow his club.
Now, with that in mind, it's an idiotic statement. As the article noted, Dungy is the first African American head coach with a Super Bowl ring, so he of all people should push for every player getting an equal shot. If Sam was more than a 7th Round Draft pick, perhaps he would value the on-the-field contributions more than he detests the off-the-field distractions. I don't know. But to call him a bigot is dumber than his actual comments.
I think Dungy's religious views may be the reason he would not put up with Sam, not necessarily the possible distractions, although if Sam were as good as Peyton Manning, I wonder if he would waiver and be fine with him on the team.
It would be great if a HoF level player at the beginning of his career came out, although I do wonder why "coming out" matters because I believe the NFL players for the most part would be fine with it. The few stragglers won't make a difference. On any team, there will be players who dislike other players for any reason. I am sure some disliked Tebow for his views.
Sam could be a HOF player. Nobody knows at this point. Adams is camp fodder, however.
I think there is a huge distinction many on this thread seem to be missing.
And that is: Dungy didn't say he we would avoid drafting Sam because he's gay. He said he'd avoid drafting him because of the distractions and issues that would follow his club.
Now, with that in mind, it's an idiotic statement. As the article noted, Dungy is the first African American head coach with a Super Bowl ring, so he of all people should push for every player getting an equal shot. If Sam was more than a 7th Round Draft pick, perhaps he would value the on-the-field contributions more than he detests the off-the-field distractions. I don't know. But to call him a bigot is dumber than his actual comments.
It's not missing. People with higher critical thinking skills have figured it out.
He's a bigot because he's discriminating against someone based on something that isn't a personal choice. The only reason that Sam could be a "distraction" is sexual preference.
Kicker, for someone touting such high critical thinking skills Â
You put virtually no thought into the final line of your post:
Quote:
He's a bigot because he's discriminating against someone based on something that isn't a personal choice. The only reason that Sam could be a "distraction" is sexual preference.
This is just so idiotic I don't know where to begin. So let's say Player X is being bombarded with question after question about whether or not he has issues playing with a gay player. Let's also say Player X actually is a bigot but is doing his best to not make homophobic public statements. He'll likely eventually fuck up, then perhaps other players who were less likely to make the same statements now feel they can do so since someone else took that first leap. Then all of a sudden the media is portraying the team as a bunch of homophobic cavemen.
Let's also say this team's head coach/GM drafting Sam because he thought he'd make a good football player, but now his team is under extensive stress due to... wait for it... the distraction caused by Sam being gay.
So to simplify all of this for you so you don't have to use your unrivaled critical thinking, just because the rest of the world deems something unacceptable and creates a distraction doesn't make the person who wants to avoid the mess in his locker room a bigot.. you fucking idiot.
Weak-willed? Yes. Poor at controlling his locker room? Certainly. Bigoted. No. But keep using your expert critical thinking skills to throw around grotesque terms about people you've never met.
If Sam is a HoF player that would be a great thing Â
You put virtually no thought into the final line of your post:
Quote:
He's a bigot because he's discriminating against someone based on something that isn't a personal choice. The only reason that Sam could be a "distraction" is sexual preference.
This is just so idiotic I don't know where to begin. So let's say Player X is being bombarded with question after question about whether or not he has issues playing with a gay player. Let's also say Player X actually is a bigot but is doing his best to not make homophobic public statements. He'll likely eventually fuck up, then perhaps other players who were less likely to make the same statements now feel they can do so since someone else took that first leap. Then all of a sudden the media is portraying the team as a bunch of homophobic cavemen.
Let's also say this team's head coach/GM drafting Sam because he thought he'd make a good football player, but now his team is under extensive stress due to... wait for it... the distraction caused by Sam being gay.
So to simplify all of this for you so you don't have to use your unrivaled critical thinking, just because the rest of the world deems something unacceptable and creates a distraction doesn't make the person who wants to avoid the mess in his locker room a bigot.. you fucking idiot.
Weak-willed? Yes. Poor at controlling his locker room? Certainly. Bigoted. No. But keep using your expert critical thinking skills to throw around grotesque terms about people you've never met.
Mike.
The fact that you think so poorly of me actually makes me happy.
I won't address the fluff in your post, because, frankly, I should always remember you've never been worth responding to. I apologize for doing that.
The reason I asked that is some here are being labeled as intolerant because they are somehow thought to be agreeing with his religious views. I don't agree with his religious views but he is free to have them. My opinions come from a different direction. My comments on this thread have little to do with his being gay. I am pretty much indifferent to that and I have said before here I consider gays in the same way I consider left handed people.
However to some here, those distinctions can't be made. The name calling and self righteous glad you will die soon uglyness comes out. I would hope we were above the Buckyd style of discourse which you can see everyday on a certain other site.
You can take that route if you want. You're not coming off any better for calling someone a bigot for "wanting to avoid a distraction." That's the bottom line. That is, actually, the opposite of critical thinking. That's cowardly (much like Dungy seems to be with his comments). It shows you put literally no thought into your statement, took an easy leap (he's religious so he must be a bigot!) and removed yourself from any discussion when your point was actually challenged.
But for the record, I stated a reasonable point about the distinction between bigotry and (weakly) wanting to avoid a distraction, you responded with really nothing other than "he's a bigot" and then backed off when you had no logical response.
You can take that route if you want. You're not coming off any better for calling someone a bigot for "wanting to avoid a distraction." That's the bottom line. That is, actually, the opposite of critical thinking. That's cowardly (much like Dungy seems to be with his comments). It shows you put literally no thought into your statement, took an easy leap (he's religious so he must be a bigot!) and removed yourself from any discussion when your point was actually challenged.
But for the record, I stated a reasonable point about the distinction between bigotry and (weakly) wanting to avoid a distraction, you responded with really nothing other than "he's a bigot" and then backed off when you had no logical response.
Enjoy not responding to this, as well.
Fantastic. Really, fantastic. A lack of an answer is not backing off, but if that's what you want to believe, go for it.
I'll choose my track record on this website, and everything I've said. Stand by every single point. And try to remember never to address anything substantive your way.
The reason I asked that is some here are being labeled as intolerant because they are somehow thought to be agreeing with his religious views. I don't agree with his religious views but he is free to have them. My opinions come from a different direction. My comments on this thread have little to do with his being gay. I am pretty much indifferent to that and I have said before here I consider gays in the same way I consider left handed people.
However to some here, those distinctions can't be made. The name calling and self righteous glad you will die soon uglyness comes out. I would hope we were above the Buckyd style of discourse which you can see everyday on a certain other site.
You're right that the discourse on this subject immediately descends into a less than fruitful discussion.
I don't agree with Dungy's views and find his reasoning on this subject pathetic. But you're right, the fact someone agrees with his views on homosexuality doesn't automatically mean they're agreeing with his religion.
and saying he deserves a 2nd (or more) chance, well that's just what's great about the USA right Tony?
Not giving a kid a chance at all, just because he has a different lifestyle outside the workplace from you...not unexpected from Mr Dungy, but I think this is one of those cases where people who stick too close to certain Biblical interpretations find themselves turned around in circles and contradicting themselves.
In summary, it's fine to take a risk and invite all the drama of someone who has had discipline/law problems, but someone who has admitted to being gay is not worth all the drama...Man, I coulda sworn the whole Vick thing (and Dungy backing him) was a way bigger story than M Sam has been, so I call BS on 'not wanting to deal with all of it'. He has made a personal judgement of this man, and it has nothing to do with the extraneous BS - Tony has made it clear previously he doesn't agree with who M Sam is, and would not want him for that reason no matter how good he is (or how many dogs he can drown)...
Honest question. My only point is that because someone doesn't want a distraction in his locker room (caused by external bigotry and perhaps homophobia within the team) doesn't mean he is a bigot.
Do you disagree with this point? And this is a yes or no question. If you want to elaborate on why then sure, but I only request you also include a definitive yes or no as well.
As usual, you want the world to be black and white, when in reality, it's mostly gray.
Wuphat, well kicker used a black and white term. Bigot. So since you made a point about my compass, and considering I took issue with kicker referring to Dungy as a bigot, one would deduct that you agree with kicker's characterization.
If I'm wrong I do apologize. Please clarify. Do you agree with kicker that Dungy is a bigot?
It's the last 'acceptable' place from under which people feel like they can comfortably be bigots without having to offer any explanation further than, 'Hey, it's my religion.'
I just hope you understand the gravity of the word. I suspect you do, which is why I'm really surprised. Especially after your previous commentary (granted, on other matters) on wanting more information before forming a conclusion. From what I can tell (and yes this may be wrong , and you may want to elaborate further, though I suspect not), you've formed this opinion on him wanting to avoid distractions and also being a religious person.
Bigotry implies Dungy wouldn't draft Sam because of his sexual orientation.
I appreciate your straightforward response and disagree with you.
I haven't made a single comment regarding Dungy's religious Â
who makes a decision based on their faith is a religious nut job? You realize many of you are intolerant and hating on Dungy because he is expressing his belief. The public made this Michael Sam issue into a media circus. I would not want the media hounding the team.
Yeah. Better that NFL teams are allowed to operate in the total media vacuum in which they used to. No spotlight. No questions. No pressure. Why can't it be like it used to be?? Before that one guy came along and suddenly the Media got all interested.
well said...
I hope Sam does well, but if the Giants has signed him, and I believe they had an offer ready, they would have likely made him sign something to preclude any TV shows, or distractions
has nothing to do with religion, has everything to do with Focus on the field
On Monday afternoon while on vacation with my family, I was quite surprised to read excerpts from an interview I gave several weeks ago related to this year’s NFL Draft, and I feel compelled to clarify those remarks.
I was asked whether I would have drafted Michael Sam and I answered that I would not have drafted him. I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team. At the time of my interview, the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael’s first season had been announced.
I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.
I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.
I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.
I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way—by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit.
The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they’re good enough to play. That’s my opinion as a coach. But those were not the questions I was asked.
What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.
I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.
I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.
I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field.
My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation.
perhaps Dungy's other statements on the topic of homosexuality are relevant here (the ones that I could find).
2007 (talking about his support of an Indiana ban on same sex marriage):
Quote:
"We're not trying to downgrade anyone else," said Dungy, coach of the Super Bowl champion Indianapolis Colts. "But we're trying to promote the family — family values the Lord's way," Dungy said. "IFI is saying what the Lord says. You can take that and make your decision on which way you want to be."
But it's not that he has anything against gay people because of his religion.
He just doesn't want a media circus. (which he wasn't even talking about. He's actually saying that "something will happen" in the locker room. I imagine he's worried about Sam trying to snatch some sausage in the shower.)
"I wouldn't want to deal with all of it. It's not going to be totally smooth...things will happen."
His "adjusted" comment:
"[P]laying in the NFL is, and should be, about merit...I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction."
It would have been pretty easy for him to make the second (more precise) comment in the original interview. But he didn't. And if he believes playing in the NFL is based on merit, why would he pass on a guy due to a potential media distraction? Wouldn't that mean it wasn't about merit?
The distraction angle is a pretty transparent shield Â
My reference to tebow is that his persona is that of a deeply religious person and i wanted to see if any Christians also had the same belief and feeling as Dungy has..
I find it almost impossible that he is the ONLY person who feels that way..
my question to you is..In his original statement, there are the three dots in there..was there more context in that statement?..It seems to be broken off and resumed..
"[P]laying in the NFL is, and should be, about merit...I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction."
So this is what pushed you over the edge into saying Tony Dungy is a homophobic bigot? OK, I take it back. You didn't jump to conclusions at all.
here is the what he answered..i don't thin it was any backtracking at all..
On Tuesday, via a statement released to multiple media outlets, Dungy defended Sam's right to play in the NFL while saying he gave an "honest answer," and that his comments were made several weeks ago when "the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael's first season had been announced."
"I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.
"I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.
"I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.
"I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way -- by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit," the statement read. "The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they're good enough to play. That's my opinion as a coach.
Mike and Mike
The Tampa Tribune's Ira Kaufman discusses his interview with Tony Dungy and Dungy's comments during the conversation about drafting Michael Sam.
More Podcasts »
"But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.
"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.
Umm... his original quote is what incited the entire discussion. Excuse me for assuming we're both aware of his original comment. You went on to say that his original comment coupled with his clarification lead you to the conclusion that Dungy is a homophobic bigot. And the fact that you would associate yourself with such distinct, heavy-handed words with the quotes above is startling.
Others have called him an asshole. I'd have a hard time arguing with that. It's an assholish thing to say. Be a man, run your squad and get everyone on the same page... winning a championship. You, however, take an absurd leap and use these words so carelessly.
It's not any one statement that's led me to my opinion it's many statements over a period of many years that has led me to my opinion.
Nuance. Again, not your friend.
Yeah, more bullshit here. At first it was just the things Cam and Exit outlined, now it's opinion you've apparently formed based on vague references to "statements over many years." Absolute nonsense.
And oddly enough, you asked me earlier when you at any point claimed Dungy's faith added to your assessment of his bigotry. Then a post or two later you're telling me to read Cam's posts where Dungy is quoted talking about the Lord and family values. Do you even know where you stand?
Right. They were. They were quotes regarding the Lord and family values.
So you want me to read Cam's quoted text (much of it quotes about Dungy's faith) then you want me to not deduct Dungy's faith contributed to your assessment that he's a bigot.
And oddly enough, you asked me earlier when you at any point claimed Dungy's faith added to your assessment of his bigotry. Then a post or two later you're telling me to read Cam's posts where Dungy is quoted talking about the Lord and family values. Do you even know where you stand?
In fact, what I was doing in that post was illustrating that, like you were able to (correctly) assume that I used Dungy's religious leanings as part of my assessment, you used my known anti-religious bias to make your assessment of my position.
You see, you were able to use previous statements I've made over time to inform your opinion that I was using his religiosity as some basis of my opinion of him. You were correct. I wasn't saying you were wrong, I was just asking how you knew that when I hadn't explicitly stated it here.
Likewise, I was able to use my understanding of Dungy's religious leaning to inform my assessment of his position regarding Sam even though he hadn't explicitly stated it.
So much so, that offline, I told Brett I was laying the groundwork for this, that you'd fall for it, and not get it.
Except I deducted information to form an opinion as to why you would call Dungy a homophobic bigot. I used this information to characterize my belief of your assessment in an open dialogue with you. Additionally, there was sufficient evidence for me to draw this conclusion. As you just alluded to, you are anti-religious. I don't quite understand how you're proud that I was able to "trick me" into highlighting that you associate religious faith with bigotry. Congrats.
Secondly, as I noted, I used the information (that I "figured out" from your game, I guess?) to assess your opinion. You then had the opportunity to respond to me. Additionally, I think that considering my assessment was accurate, you wouldn't be offended by what I concluded?
You however have apparently imposed the same logic on far less information about Dungy (I've had far more interaction with you than you have with him, of course) to create truly dreadful labels. Bigot. Homophobic. And you state them carelessly. Does anyone get hurt? No, but it speaks to your character.
I alluded to your vague, unsubstantiated references of times where Dungy "hinted" at homophobia in the past and how they were a diversion from your initial stance that everything I needed to know can be found in Exit and Cam's posts.
I acknowledged that when I said that it is odd a guy who constantly claims it's best to have more information before forming an opinion to use words as heavy-handed as the ones you've used to characterize someone who, you say, "hints" at homophobia.
in an attempt to deny equal rights to homosexuals.
And I know people hate the analogy, but folks have used religion to deny rights to others time and again. Yep, even in this country.
What I find sad is that although it has been done plenty, folks will recognize it in history and scoff at those that did it while willfully ignoring and even defending those that are currently doing it.
Go ahead and believe that fags will burn in hell or don't "agree" with their lifestyle (still haven't really figured out what the hell that is supposed to mean). That's your right. It isn't however your right to deny them the same rights that you have. All men are created equal, yada yada, yada...(excluding of course hispanics, asians, and wimmin)
Oh, and those worthless Irish drunks. Fuck them and the ginger scourge that they've unleashed on the world.
If you think bigot and willfully ignorant are heavy handed words Â
I'd suggest that if bigots and the willfully ignorant don't want to be called as such, they either take their medicine when it's called out, keep their opinions to themselves, or, and here's a wild fucking idea, re-evaluate those ideas and see if maybe they've somehow been mistaken.
RE: If you think bigot and willfully ignorant are heavy handed words Â
I'd suggest that if bigots and the willfully ignorant don't want to be called as such, they either take their medicine when it's called out, keep their opinions to themselves, or, and here's a wild fucking idea, re-evaluate those ideas and see if maybe they've somehow been mistaken.
If you don't think "bigot" is a heavy-handed word then I certainly am not the one who needs to grow up, Wuphat. It is a life-long label of intolerance for some... In most cases, hopefully, it's deserved.
So when you call Tony Dungy a "homophobic bigot," and then diminish the strength of such terms, you prove that you have no business using them in the first place.
But I think his comments had more to do with value vs. distraction. Is a slow tweener who's ceiling is most likely being a special teams player worth all the media attention your team is getting and being asked questions about it 24/7? Some franchises like the attention and want to be part of history, some don't want the attention if it's not worth it.
If Jadeveon Clowney was gay, he'd still be going #1 because the value is worth the distraction. But by reading Tony Dungy's other comments, it just seems like he's not a diehard homosexual fan.
imo he's clearly hiding behind the "too much media attention" angle.
There really won't be THAT much media attention with this story. There was barely a mention of Jason Collins during the NBA season. Sure they'll talk about him on Sportcenter if he gets cut or makes the team, and there's always a potential "NFL player says he doesn't agree with Michal Sam" story in the middle of the season. But I look at Jason Collins and I see a guy who was barely mentioned in the NBA this year. Why would Michael Sam create such a huge media frenzy when we just saw the lack of buzz that Jason Collins went through this past year? When Collins signed with the Nets, boom story. After that we went on with our lives.
This is 100% a team chemistry issue that Dungy is too much of a coward to admit to. He's hiding behind nonsense like "distractions from the media" when he's the same guy that supported Michael Vick, a player who was going to cause to cause a ton of distractions in the media. Makes no sense. He tried to cover up his hypocritical comments by making even more hypocritical comments. Dude is simply put a liar and a coward. The media distraction excuse is a joke. If you're a head coach and don't have the confidence in your ability to handle this kind of "distraction", you're a shitty coach.
on ESPN is along those same lines as Dungy--"Well, Sam isn't that good so it isn't worth the distraction" Eh, listening comprehension and big picture, assholes?
Dungy is the ONLY person who has these views..I almost think people don't really like Dungy for his support of Michael Vick...
I also don't understand what him being the first Black Coach to win a SB has to do with anything..
I didn't like it when Dungy supported Vick. I don't like Dungy's views on Sam. I wouldn't like it if Coughlin came out with these same comments. I don't think any of those views are inconsistent with one another, and I'd imagine most here have the same thinking.
has very little to do with my thoughts on this. It just makes it a lot easier to present his hypocrisy when his main argument is "potentially distracting media attention".
Even if Dungy didn't support Vick, I would still find it incredibly easy to see right through his BS "media distraction" excuse.
i don't listen to NBC? or whatever channel he's on so i never heard his views on Vick..i know he did support him..I never thought highly of Vick but i also am not a animal lover, so my views may be a lot different from a lot of others..In no ay do i condone what he did..
Like I pointed out before, there are vast groups who point to their religious beliefs to object to something..see: being against gay marriage..
i think in this case. more are objecting to what Dungy said because of his support for Vick..Just my opinion..
I know I know there are many christians out there who do agree with a person who is gay..many..
Does the "why" matter? I am sure there are others who would not want Â
Sam on their team for the distraction it may cause or for non-religious reasons. I do suspect Dungy's view is t least partially based on his beliefs but it might not be and it does not matter what the view is based on in any case. If the guy should not be discriminated against then the reason you would do it does not matter.
Nauseating is an understatement. He's the worst.
Electrocute all the dogs you want, just don't go kissing any boys, OK?
https://www.facebook.com/TonyDungy/posts/10151566031658326 - ( New Window )
But most signs and statements point to his integration into a locker room as the key determinant in his draft position being later than what many expected.
Integration into a locker room is important, but it's beyond idiotic how his situation has seemingly been handled.
It's amazing what can be rationalized in the name of religion.
PaulBlakeTSU : 2:51 pm : link : reply
He seems to be a big fan of Jackie Robinson's story
Wow good pull. I guess it's only important to him if his own minority group is being discriminated against
Both would be distractions....one just so happens to be gay. He can run the distraction line all he wants but it's pretty damn easy to see through
If Sam had Clowney like talent, Dungy would've dealt with the distraction. Nothing earth shattering here.
If Spencer Paysinger tried to pull what LT used to, he would be cut immediately. It's all risk/reward.
The tragedy of all this is people not truly understanding what they read when they think they are learning something religious.
If Sam had Clowney like talent, Dungy would've dealt with the distraction. Nothing earth shattering here.
If Spencer Paysinger tried to pull what LT used to, he would be cut immediately. It's all risk/reward.
"Viewpoints?" I don't even know what that means. The fact that he's gay is a viewpoint?
And Dungy hasn't made any comments regarding Sam's talent - only what he calls his lifestyle.
Meanwhile players and their "lifestyles" of crime are perfectly acceptable to Dungy.
All he said was that he's "not saying Sam shouldn't have a CHANCE to play" not that he's good enough.
Yeah. Better that NFL teams are allowed to operate in the total media vacuum in which they used to. No spotlight. No questions. No pressure. Why can't it be like it used to be?? Before that one guy came along and suddenly the Media got all interested.
Apparently many of the people who know him personally like and respect him.
Unfortunately, we have a situation where the market dictates that certain intolerance is acceptable (like drafting Sam later because of something over which he has no control), but that's the rub.
Sam is homosexual, and it's not something he can control or be "cured" of (not that should enter any legitimate discussion; people who advocate this have an IQ I don't want being replicated anytime soon).
How that should be equated to actions that take conscious choice (such as killing a dog) is beyond me. That we view the two with equivalence is disturbing.
We should be so much more critical about the problems integrating into a locker room where people made a choice to hurt themselves or others, rather than if a person likes the same sex.
Being black used to be something that could pull apart a locker room, and, somehow, we've managed to survive...
Unfortunately, we have a situation where the market dictates that certain intolerance is acceptable (like drafting Sam later because of something over which he has no control), but that's the rub.
Sam is homosexual, and it's not something he can control or be "cured" of (not that should enter any legitimate discussion; people who advocate this have an IQ I don't want being replicated anytime soon).
How that should be equated to actions that take conscious choice (such as killing a dog) is beyond me. That we view the two with equivalence is disturbing.
We should be so much more critical about the problems integrating into a locker room where people made a choice to hurt themselves or others, rather than if a person likes the same sex.
Think T'eo? He had his drama that had nothing to do with football and then after he was drafted, it seemed that we didn't hear much more about it. You just answer dopey questions with, "I'm here to talk about football" a few times and any Media drama ceases.
Any takers?
Being black used to be something that could pull apart a locker room, and, somehow, we've managed to survive...
The belief itself is ignorant and the criticisms of it are completely warranted.
Quote:
that think that something not within a person's choice set (again, sexual orientation) is some scarlet letter as aberrations.
Being black used to be something that could pull apart a locker room, and, somehow, we've managed to survive...
Easy fella...I didn't say anything about integration here. Ick!
Randy,
I apologize. My previous posts were a bit carelessly worded.
I'm not worried about people who say that character risks exist in all players (like you).
I'm worried about the people who think that, because it's acceptable that we don't accept some character risks (like Vick), we don't need to accept homosexuals either, because they are a "risk" for the locker room.
How does him being against Sam and gays make him a hypocrite. As for the circus be honest there is more than just the media when it comes to Adams you have a locker room to oversee as well. dog fighting and homosexuality will have totally different weight in the locker-room.
Now if Adams had said he WAS gay and changed saw the light or whatever and THEN Dungy still said no and it was because of his past sexuality being a sin then hypocrite could be applied.
Yeah. Different opinions used to be no problem here. I mean, the Civil War…women's suffrage…the Civil Rights movement…we're a country built on quietly letting ignorant people have their way. Man, the good old days.
Having different opinions is perfectly acceptable.
But couching opinions in a thin veneer not too far from discrimination isn't.
I have no tolerance for people who espouse homophobic, racist, or other types of shit. Neither should any civilized society. As much as we can push these cretins to the margin, the better.
They can opine, but it certainly doesn't mean it's legitimate or not worthy of significant derision.
I assume you meant Tebow. Didn't hear anymore about it? It seemed to even increase and you heard hints that many teams/coaches wouldn't want to deal with the distraction he brings with him.
Quote:
In comment 11775137 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
that think that something not within a person's choice set (again, sexual orientation) is some scarlet letter as aberrations.
Being black used to be something that could pull apart a locker room, and, somehow, we've managed to survive...
Easy fella...I didn't say anything about integration here. Ick!
Randy,
I apologize. My previous posts were a bit carelessly worded.
I'm not worried about people who say that character risks exist in all players (like you).
I'm worried about the people who think that, because it's acceptable that we don't accept some character risks (like Vick), we don't need to accept homosexuals either, because they are a "risk" for the locker room.
Quote:
Think T'eo? He had his drama that had nothing to do with football and then after he was drafted, it seemed that we didn't hear much more about it.
I assume you meant Tebow. Didn't hear anymore about it? It seemed to even increase and you heard hints that many teams/coaches wouldn't want to deal with the distraction he brings with him.
What do you think it is about Sam that would create an environment he "wouldn't want to deal with" ?
It's not that hard to put 2 and 2 together here.
Don't trust what I say 100% for the next few weeks :)
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
How does him being against Sam and gays make him a hypocrite. As for the circus be honest there is more than just the media when it comes to Adams you have a locker room to oversee as well. dog fighting and homosexuality will have totally different weight in the locker-room.
Now if Adams had said he WAS gay and changed saw the light or whatever and THEN Dungy still said no and it was because of his past sexuality being a sin then hypocrite could be applied.
Quote:
Think T'eo? He had his drama that had nothing to do with football and then after he was drafted, it seemed that we didn't hear much more about it.
I assume you meant Tebow. Didn't hear anymore about it? It seemed to even increase and you heard hints that many teams/coaches wouldn't want to deal with the distraction he brings with him.
It was more about the noodle arm he brought with him.
And the cretins will fall further and further down the rabbit hole.
How does him being against Sam and gays make him a hypocrite. As for the circus be honest there is more than just the media when it comes to Adams you have a locker room to oversee as well. dog fighting and homosexuality will have totally different weight in the locker-room.
Now if Adams had said he WAS gay and changed saw the light or whatever and THEN Dungy still said no and it was because of his past sexuality being a sin then hypocrite could be applied.
Not sure who Adams is or what you're talking about.
But I'm fairly sure a good eye stoving will remove Adams or Sam or whoever from their gay problem.
Don't trust what I say 100% for the next few weeks :)
Boston Logger?
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
Both faced a media storm that said that they would be locker room distractions. Both had features being picketed against not under their control (skin color; sexual orientation). And both faced shit parallels about how they aren't being selected because other character risks aren't taken on, without realizing that the two are not observationally equivalent.
The only difference between accepting one and rejecting the other is because of religion.
Being honest, the reason he's not playing professional football on any level right now is because he sucks. And if he does get signed somewhere, it's likely because the non-football reasons will be attractive to someone looks to put asses in seats on the level Tebow is capable of competing on. So he'd be rewarded for the circus he brings.
Quote:
Be honest there was a lot more going on with Tebow mania and the distractions it would cause a team than his arm strength.
Being honest, the reason he's not playing professional football on any level right now is because he sucks. And if he does get signed somewhere, it's likely because the non-football reasons will be attractive to someone looks to put asses in seats on the level Tebow is capable of competing on. So he'd be rewarded for the circus he brings.
Which would also make Dungy a hypocrite.
That explains some of the flavors. I knew it.
SOB
Quote:
In comment 11775180 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Be honest there was a lot more going on with Tebow mania and the distractions it would cause a team than his arm strength.
I agree with this. The media did make the religion angle more of a topic than it should have been (perhaps) but he's out of football because he was a bad QB--not due to some anti-Christian agenda (in a league with MANY Christian athletes).
The Media didn't do anything but point the camera at him while he was genuflecting. He wanted attention for being religious. He got it.
Obviously any player with enough talent will find coaches that are more than willing to deal with most distractions they bring. Players with less talent not so much.
The only way it would be valid is if Sam could not contribute on the football field.
And that's not what he said.
Somehow, I don't think he would agree with that statement. Nor should he.
Obviously any player with enough talent will find coaches that are more than willing to deal with most distractions they bring. Players with less talent not so much.
And there you go. So Tim Tebow isn't in the NFL right now and Michael Sam is.
The market is speaking.
It was a incredibly dumb thing for Dungy to have said, but it is simply naïve to think that many coaches likely wouldn't want to deal with the distraction Sam would bring when weighed against his talents. They are just smart enough to keep their mouths closed.
Quote:
But my point was the teams that hinted that Tebow wasn't worth dealing with because of the distraction.
Obviously any player with enough talent will find coaches that are more than willing to deal with most distractions they bring. Players with less talent not so much.
And there you go. So Tim Tebow isn't in the NFL right now and Michael Sam is.
The market is speaking.
He has his chance, I hope he makes the best of it. As far as the comparison we will have to see if he lasts any more than the three season that Tebow did.
I’m homophobic just like I’m arachnophobic.I have nothing against homosexuals or spiders but I’d still scream if I found one in my bathtub !
4:57 PM - 10 Oct 2012
It was a incredibly dumb thing for Dungy to have said, but it is simply naïve to think that many coaches likely wouldn't want to deal with the distraction Sam would bring when weighed against his talents. They are just smart enough to keep their mouths closed.
You've spent a lot of time defending 'an incredibly dumb thing…to have said…'
Perhaps those other coaches you're so sure agree just aren't, you know, dumb?
Quote:
Regardless of the talent, the guy will bring with him a circus and if he happens to get cut, the team and the staff will come under unnecessary scrutiny. Didn't Jason Witlock address this a few months back too?
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
It isn't PC to be anti-homophobe.
It's bigoted to call someone a "homophobe" without really knowing what's in their hearts and how they really feel. PC crowd is very quick to judge and condemn all the while claiming to be anti-judgmental and non-discriminatory.. as long as you agree with however they feel that day.
Sam has done more in pro-football than 99.99% of the population. Good for him and as an SEC fan, I hope he carries himself well because he represents his school and his conference. As the fan of an opposing team, I can't bring myself to worry about a 7th rd pick beyond that.
“I wouldn’t have taken him,’’ Dungy told the Tampa Tribune. “Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it. It’s not going to be totally smooth . . . things will happen." He's assuming the worst based on his ignorance and intolerance. And THAT isn't fair to a gay player.
Obviously any player with enough talent will find coaches that are more than willing to deal with most distractions they bring. Players with less talent not so much.
Sad but true.
It was dumb, I just think people are naïve if they think Dungy is unique.
Quote:
In comment 11775166 newmike2 said:
Quote:
Regardless of the talent, the guy will bring with him a circus and if he happens to get cut, the team and the staff will come under unnecessary scrutiny. Didn't Jason Witlock address this a few months back too?
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
It isn't PC to be anti-homophobe.
It's bigoted to call someone a "homophobe" without really knowing what's in their hearts and how they really feel. PC crowd is very quick to judge and condemn all the while claiming to be anti-judgmental and non-discriminatory.. as long as you agree with however they feel that day.
Sam has done more in pro-football than 99.99% of the population. Good for him and as an SEC fan, I hope he carries himself well because he represents his school and his conference. As the fan of an opposing team, I can't bring myself to worry about a 7th rd pick beyond that.
It is much easier to weather the possible media / other storms with a hall of fame caliber player that is helping your team win. I am not saying that is fair but it is reality.
It would be akin to calling an epileptic a character risk in the locker room because he may seize.
It was dumb, I just think people are naïve if they think Dungy is unique.
It was dumb, I just think people are naïve if they think Dungy is unique.
It took a number of posts before you called it 'a dumb thing to have said'.
Meanwhile, your first post still looks like a defense, because you think he's just saying (as you repeat above) what (you believe) everyone else is thinking.
steve in ky : 2:46 pm : link : reply
as a potential distraction not worth dealing with. I seriously doubt he is alone in this regard. The difference is the majority that feel that way won't admit it.
Meanwhile, the most I've heard Michael Sam's name since draft today is today.
So how's Rams camp going? You must know with all the non-stop, distracting media coverage.
"Lifestyle?"
That indicates you think his being gay is his CHOICE - the very thing that makes homophobes ignorant and ridiculous.
Right. A distraction that Tebow, a QB (rather high profile position in the NFL) brought to himself.
We still have seen how Sam will behave on the field. Perhaps he'll just do his job and then jog off. Like most of the other guys.
I like girls and presumably did not learn that trait. But living my life trying to get some stank on the hang-low seems to be my "lifestyle" albeit one I was born into, is it not?
Quote:
In comment 11775188 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 11775166 newmike2 said:
Quote:
Regardless of the talent, the guy will bring with him a circus and if he happens to get cut, the team and the staff will come under unnecessary scrutiny. Didn't Jason Witlock address this a few months back too?
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
It isn't PC to be anti-homophobe.
It's bigoted to call someone a "homophobe" without really knowing what's in their hearts and how they really feel. PC crowd is very quick to judge and condemn all the while claiming to be anti-judgmental and non-discriminatory.. as long as you agree with however they feel that day.
Sam has done more in pro-football than 99.99% of the population. Good for him and as an SEC fan, I hope he carries himself well because he represents his school and his conference. As the fan of an opposing team, I can't bring myself to worry about a 7th rd pick beyond that.
Dungy has a history of it and I will end this when it is clear that if you call out intolerance, then YOU must be the intolerant one. It is actually the argument that racists are known to yammer. Have a blessed day!
So, it's intolerant to disagree with you.. That sounds awfully judgmental...
Quote:
In comment 11775232 newmike2 said:
Quote:
In comment 11775188 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 11775166 newmike2 said:
Quote:
Regardless of the talent, the guy will bring with him a circus and if he happens to get cut, the team and the staff will come under unnecessary scrutiny. Didn't Jason Witlock address this a few months back too?
The last thing a coach should be answering are questions about a player's sexual preference when they have only a few weeks to get a team on the field. Then to deal with it every week during the season is a task that I would not want to deal with either.
If I were the GM and HC, I would want my teams to be judged for play on the field, not for images of a marginal 7th round pick licking cake off his boyfriend.
It isn't PC to be anti-homophobe.
It's bigoted to call someone a "homophobe" without really knowing what's in their hearts and how they really feel. PC crowd is very quick to judge and condemn all the while claiming to be anti-judgmental and non-discriminatory.. as long as you agree with however they feel that day.
Sam has done more in pro-football than 99.99% of the population. Good for him and as an SEC fan, I hope he carries himself well because he represents his school and his conference. As the fan of an opposing team, I can't bring myself to worry about a 7th rd pick beyond that.
Dungy has a history of it and I will end this when it is clear that if you call out intolerance, then YOU must be the intolerant one. It is actually the argument that racists are known to yammer. Have a blessed day!
So, it's intolerant to disagree with you.. That sounds awfully judgmental...
Quote:
I'm not defending him. I thought Randy was using the Tebow comparison and responded, you then responded to that response so I answered you.
It was dumb, I just think people are naïve if they think Dungy is unique.
It took a number of posts before you called it 'a dumb thing to have said'.
Meanwhile, your first post still looks like a defense, because you think he's just saying (as you repeat above) what (you believe) everyone else is thinking.
Quote:
There are likely many coaches who would view it
steve in ky : 2:46 pm : link : reply
as a potential distraction not worth dealing with. I seriously doubt he is alone in this regard. The difference is the majority that feel that way won't admit it.
Meanwhile, the most I've heard Michael Sam's name since draft today is today.
So how's Rams camp going? You must know with all the non-stop, distracting media coverage.
My first post was simply pointing out what some people seemed to be missing and that I doubted he would be the lone coach who felt that way only the others wouldn't admit it. By suggesting they know better than to admit it implied (or at least I thought it did) it was a dumb thing to say. Sorry if it I didn't show what you feel was an appropriate on top of a soap box shout about it.
What does it make you then?
What does "I don't agree with his lifestyle" even mean? You don't agree that he likes dick? You agree that he likes dick but that he shouldn't be allowed to like dick?
What part of his "lifestyle" has any effect on your life?
Label me anything you want (I'll probably agree with you) I don't think he belongs in a locker room and I don't want to watch him play. Must add I'm not religious so i don't even have that excuse. I don't think he should be prohibited either, but there's lots of things that are legal and that I recognize have a right to exist that I don't endorse.
I almost feel ashamed of the way I feel and I find Robinson noble and his cause marvelously just and find nothing like that here and find the comparison odious, though the strange mixed up things is, even as I write that I understand the argument comparing it to Robinson.
I am still allowed to label certain things or behaviors as loathsome. I guess.???
I don't get why some people go out of their way to say they don't agree with a certain lifestyle. It's basically akin to prefacing something with "no offense" or "not to be racist", only to follow it up with a statement that is obscenely offensive or racist. How about not giving a shit about what 2 consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors?
I mean, his son dies and he misses ONE game due to that "distraction"?
Label me anything you want (I'll probably agree with you) I don't think he belongs in a locker room and I don't want to watch him play. Must add I'm not religious so i don't even have that excuse. I don't think he should be prohibited either, but there's lots of things that are legal and that I recognize have a right to exist that I don't endorse.
I almost feel ashamed of the way I feel and I find Robinson noble and his cause marvelously just and find nothing like that here and find the comparison odious, though the strange mixed up things is, even as I write that I understand the argument comparing it to Robinson.
I am still allowed to label certain things or behaviors as loathsome. I guess.???
I guess I kind of "get" where you're coming from.
I find guys that are into fat chicks to be loathsome, too (the attracted to fat chick part, not the actual person).
Of course, it doesn't have any impact on my life, so I wouldn't mind watching a guy that's into big chicks play football.
That does make him a hypocrite.
Hell, you don't have to agree with someone's lifestyle but how about just having the equal opportunity to WORK regardless of the life you live away from your job (stripper/porn teachers excluded).
Oh sorry. You're gay, you can't work here. Really??
But as someone else said earlier in this thread, Dungy is yesterday's news.
Your reactions are only a disapproval and condemnation which can potentially hurt people just living their lives. Further, associating a religion to it compounds that bigotry to have a misguided corroboration which doesn't exist. And quite frankly ignores another part of that religion about judging others.'
How about spending more energy on condoning happy relationships between good people who are living peaceful and productive lives? No matter what their orientation.
For the rest, it's probably just an anachronistic saying without much thought into what it really says (like using derogatory slang words like retard or gay).
I'm gonna keep saying lifestyle in these discussions just to confuse Cam. =)
Got it.
In comment 11775773 Wuphat said:
Sheet. If that was the problem, I wouldn't ever wear a condom.
Wait...
Yeah, too big.
I wasn't aware that the term "lifestyle" was politically incorrect now.
I mean, you could've just said, "Hey Curtis, that term doesn't mean what you think it means. Its actually kind of demeaning."
And I would've said, "okay, I wasn't aware. I'm sorry."
Either way, sorry if I offended anyone.
I wasn't aware that the term "lifestyle" was politically incorrect now.
I mean, you could've just said, "Hey Curtis, that term doesn't mean what you think it means. Its actually kind of demeaning."
And I would've said, "okay, I wasn't aware. I'm sorry."
Either way, sorry if I offended anyone.
Woah. Not trying to put words in your mouth, and you certainly didn't offend me. Not sure what "PC" has to do with anything.
I asked what that meant, because it doesn't really seem to have much thought put into it or make much sense at all to me.
If I were to say, "I don't agree with Curtis' lifestyle." what would that mean to you?
Obviously "lifestyle" in this case is a substitution for homosexual.
It's the "I don't agree" that makes no sense.
Who's asking anyone to agree? What are they agreeing on? What does it mean that they don't agree?
If you don't agree with folks getting a tattoo, that's pretty simple: You don't think folks should get inked.
But if you don't agree with someone's lifestyle that doesn't mean that you don't think they should be gay? Or does it just mean that you aren't gay?
If it's the latter, why not just say, "I'm not into guys"?
Saying, "I don't agree with his lifestyle" seems to me to imply much more than just, "I don't like man sausage in my mouth."
Dungy is a quack.
When I said "lifestyle" I didn't mean that people shouldn't be gay. I just meant that part of their life along with any other, shouldn't matter even if you don't agree with it.
This is handled quite simply at the first team meeting:
"When you're asked about anyone's sexual orientation or how anyone is fitting in to the locker room, the answer to the first is that it is nobody's business but that particular person and the answer to the second is that we keep what goes on in the locker room in the locker room."
"Feel free to add a sly wink when you answer the second question."
Shake on him for having the courage to acknowledge who he is.
That's such an idiotic mentality...
I have no doubt that if Michael Sam was a 1st to 3rd round player, Dungy would deal with the media circus that is about to unfold, but as 7th round talent, there are about 100 other people available that he would not have to answer the same stupid daily questions about, or if he was cut, answer those same stupid questions about how much his being a homosexual had to do with it. And, sorry to say it, but that poor guy (Sam) is going to catch some hell in that locker room or be ostracized by some of his teammates for who he is. That kid Martin in Miami was bullied over his weak personality and the coaching staff did nothing to stop it. Now the Rams coaching staff is going to have to be on top of what is going on in that locker room. So with 90 players in that locker room, that staff will need to keep a special eye on one player to make sure he isn't abused.
That's another debate altogether.
Where did that come from? I'm pretty sure we haven't been talking about gay marriage and how one's views on it relates to being homophobic.
But everyone is entered into a civil union (homosexual or heterosexual) with equal benefits for all. You are formally tied together as spouses by civil unions, and not by marriage. Marriage will solely be a religious institution that yields NO earthly benefits, solely spiritual.
If you don't want to accord equal civil union benefits to all; not only do you fail at a separation of church and state, but you discriminate.
I have no doubt that if Michael Sam was a 1st to 3rd round player, Dungy would deal with the media circus that is about to unfold, but as 7th round talent, there are about 100 other people available that he would not have to answer the same stupid daily questions about, or if he was cut, answer those same stupid questions about how much his being a homosexual had to do with it. And, sorry to say it, but that poor guy (Sam) is going to catch some hell in that locker room or be ostracized by some of his teammates for who he is. That kid Martin in Miami was bullied over his weak personality and the coaching staff did nothing to stop it. Now the Rams coaching staff is going to have to be on top of what is going on in that locker room. So with 90 players in that locker room, that staff will need to keep a special eye on one player to make sure he isn't abused.
Pretty sure he's allowed to say whatever he wants.
Also pretty sure that we're allowed to call him a hypocrite for saying it.
If someone can't take their personal views being criticized, they always have the option of keeping their personal views to themselves.
If you got any compassion, interest in justice and are at all open hearted/minded, you're rotting for Michael Sam because he repents an opportunity for people to be treated as they are. Not just when they beat women, kill dogs, kill people driving drunk, do a bunch of coke they ask the cops if they know who they are…all accepting Michael Sam requires is understanding his sexual orientation is different. Not his 'lifestyle' or whatever that's code for…just who he has sex with. Because that's so fucking important. Anyone 'distracted' by that has issues of their own to work out.
So, yeah. Tony Dungy is an ignorant man.
And that saddens me.
Cool, got that.
See kicker's response above.
Also, IIRC traditionally marriage has been a state institution, not a religious one. It's about property rights more than anything else (or was, or is, although folks ascribe whatever meaning they want to it- much like folks do with just about everything)
The thing is, you can't make everyone attach the same meaning to something. Especially when the meaning is (for some) religious- there's that whole pesky "freedom of religion" thing.
And that saddens me.
If he's any kind of real man, he'd be all up on the asses trying to get some.
And also trying to molest their children and trying to turn their children and them gay.
That's what The Gays do, you know?
I thought the same thing when I was glad the Yankees didn't have the first black player.
And admiring Jackie Robinson while not wanting, as a coach, a distraction on your team are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that as a coach, he would not have signed Robinson because of the distraction while nonetheless admiring him. Not saying this is the case, but some of you are drawing false comparisons here. And when he said , as a coach, he would "talk to" Sam about the homosexuality, it sounds not much different than the council he offered Vick, whom he also regarded as someone who had lost his way.
The bottom line is that I don't buy in to the idea that "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore you are a no-good scumbag cretin". How about "probably a nice guy, but he's dead wrong about this. I hope he wakes up soon." Nah, not on BBI.
He comes across as just another bigot hiding behind religion.
And admiring Jackie Robinson while not wanting, as a coach, a distraction on your team are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that as a coach, he would not have signed Robinson because of the distraction while nonetheless admiring him. Not saying this is the case, but some of you are drawing false comparisons here. And when he said , as a coach, he would "talk to" Sam about the homosexuality, it sounds not much different than the council he offered Vick, whom he also regarded as someone who had lost his way.
The bottom line is that I don't buy in to the idea that "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore you are a no-good scumbag cretin". How about "probably a nice guy, but he's dead wrong about this. I hope he wakes up soon." Nah, not on BBI.
This post is misguided, but likely sincerely believed.
So, anything that is sincerely held, can't be hateful? Sorry, but your post is a lot of nonsense - while the world has a lot of gray, it some times offers us clear glimpses of right and wrong.
Would you have a problem with people describing as a racist an otherwise decent man who had a "sincerely held belief" than African-Americans were inferior?
I think anyone thinking clearly should do that, but hey, that may be the self-righteous talking.
You bully.
I'm just happy that I'm on the correct side of history, and that these dinosaurs will die out sooner rather than later.
If it causes some people to not read my posts, fine.
Some ideas shouldn't be tolerated simply because they are opinions. Discrimination is one of those. People would balk at allowing the Stalins if the world to express themselves, but other (supposed lesser) forms of discrimination are acceptable.
Not in the world that we are evolving towards.
Of course teams would have taken Sam if he had Jackie Robinson's level of talent because teams want to win and they overlook or make exceptions for things they otherwise condemn or don't accept). Progress is made when teams and good-natured/decent coaches/owners give the opportunities to those when they are merely as qualified.
And that saddens me.
You know it never entered my mind that "distraction" had anything to do with him being gay per se. All it ever meant to me was media circus. In that vein, I agree with Big Al. I don't care about his personal life but I wouldn't want the attention. I would sign the third or fourth gay player or even Sam 4 years into a productive career, but I think he's have to be super special for me to sign him him first. I don't think that's so much bigotry as it is cowardice.
Honestly, I will have to re-read the thread, because I don't see people calling for Dungy's head. They're calling him a hypocrite and ignorant and a bigot.
I guess the latter could be construed as "hateful", but a spade is a spade, no? Or is it something about a cigar? Oral fetish, perhaps? Wait, that's totally off topic (sort of).
And admiring Jackie Robinson while not wanting, as a coach, a distraction on your team are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that as a coach, he would not have signed Robinson because of the distraction while nonetheless admiring him. Not saying this is the case, but some of you are drawing false comparisons here. And when he said , as a coach, he would "talk to" Sam about the homosexuality, it sounds not much different than the council he offered Vick, whom he also regarded as someone who had lost his way.
The bottom line is that I don't buy in to the idea that "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore you are a no-good scumbag cretin". How about "probably a nice guy, but he's dead wrong about this. I hope he wakes up soon." Nah, not on BBI.
Dungy isn't calling out gays outwardly but there's a track record there of his disapproval so what we're seeing is the same veiled wording which is cowardly IMO. But either way, I don't see eye to eye with people who are anti-gay, whether they soften their wording or are more outward with it. Prejudice and bigotry are just that and are uttered by fearful, ignorant people.
Quote:
who view the "distraction" as Sam in the showers, furiously masturbating while the others have no escape from this hell.
And that saddens me.
You know it never entered my mind that "distraction" had anything to do with him being gay per se. All it ever meant to me was media circus. In that vein, I agree with Big Al. I don't care about his personal life but I wouldn't want the attention. I would sign the third or fourth gay player or even Sam 4 years into a productive career, but I think he's have to be super special for me to sign him him first. I don't think that's so much bigotry as it is cowardice.
What does the "media circus" entail? Reporters asking stupid questions? They do that at every press conference. I coach or team that can't handle that has no business being in the NFL.
The horror of being asked questions twice a week. I know I could never do it. Imagine having to say, "No comment" multiple times in an hour.
I'm just happy that I'm on the correct side of history, and that these dinosaurs will die out sooner rather than later.
If it causes some people to not read my posts, fine.
Some ideas shouldn't be tolerated simply because they are opinions. Discrimination is one of those. People would balk at allowing the Stalins if the world to express themselves, but other (supposed lesser) forms of discrimination are acceptable.
Not in the world that we are evolving towards.
I never said that all ideas should be tolerated, they should be subject to scrutiny, and if found wanting, should be discredited. I just don't think that hating a person who is not hateful is a virtuous position. Again, bringing up Stalin ... that is a purely hateful person rife with hateful acts and deserving of hate. To compare him to Tony Dungy would be way off base IMHO
I have no idea how people think a team can't handle the media about one topic, when talking to the media on a daily basis is a prerequisite.
These players have been dealing with controversies for years now, and all of a sudden being homosexual is the tipping point?
Quote:
others cretins who hold these viewpoints.
I'm just happy that I'm on the correct side of history, and that these dinosaurs will die out sooner rather than later.
If it causes some people to not read my posts, fine.
Some ideas shouldn't be tolerated simply because they are opinions. Discrimination is one of those. People would balk at allowing the Stalins if the world to express themselves, but other (supposed lesser) forms of discrimination are acceptable.
Not in the world that we are evolving towards.
I never said that all ideas should be tolerated, they should be subject to scrutiny, and if found wanting, should be discredited. I just don't think that hating a person who is not hateful is a virtuous position. Again, bringing up Stalin ... that is a purely hateful person rife with hateful acts and deserving of hate. To compare him to Tony Dungy would be way off base IMHO
Why? Simply because you draw the line of intolerance at a much higher threshold doesn't mean I need to find that acceptable.
Stalin at his core was intolerant. Dungy may be accepting of reformed prisoners, but intolerance of homosexuals is just as telling on his character as on others.
In other words, there is no rational basis on which his intolerance stands, other than a straying from the historical roots of what his religion used to stand for.
Hell, the Super Bowl is the biggest sports event in the country and it determines NFL's champion. And the NFL specifically creates a media circus for the event. They find an entire convention center to to create a media spectactle.
I don't think so. If you think a view is intolerant, by all means say so. I'm having trouble with spewing hatred and saying its ok 'cause you're wrong. Now, if you direct hatred at an obviously hateful person that's something else. The problem with that is what we would define as hateful. I didn't see anything hateful about Dungy, just misguided beliefs that should be scrutinized.
Of course it's relevant.
People brought up the notion that this will be a media circus. There are numerous examples where other things which are momentous occasions in the NFL haven't led to the team suffering from this so-called circus.
As you yourself pointed out coaches have a way of dealing with this. To think that some won't be able to handle it isn't the correct view in my opinion
I had no idea you were avoiding me, thank you for that, I am certainly smarter for it and please be more diligent about it going forward.
Just to be clear, it's because you think you saw a UFO, right? LOL.
actions speak louder than words, River Mike. just because Dungy is being gentlemanly about it doesn't mean that it's not hateful. he's saying that it it were up to him, he'd exclude this player from his locker room, and not on the basis of whether or not he's good enough to play. he may do that with a smile and a handshake, but at the end of the day, it's still discrimination and it's still exclusion and it's still a stigma that he's perpetuating and endorsing.
he may not be screaming "FAG!" but his actions most certainly do.
Quote:
In comment 11775920 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
others cretins who hold these viewpoints.
I'm just happy that I'm on the correct side of history, and that these dinosaurs will die out sooner rather than later.
If it causes some people to not read my posts, fine.
Some ideas shouldn't be tolerated simply because they are opinions. Discrimination is one of those. People would balk at allowing the Stalins if the world to express themselves, but other (supposed lesser) forms of discrimination are acceptable.
Not in the world that we are evolving towards.
I never said that all ideas should be tolerated, they should be subject to scrutiny, and if found wanting, should be discredited. I just don't think that hating a person who is not hateful is a virtuous position. Again, bringing up Stalin ... that is a purely hateful person rife with hateful acts and deserving of hate. To compare him to Tony Dungy would be way off base IMHO
Why? Simply because you draw the line of intolerance at a much higher threshold doesn't mean I need to find that acceptable.
Stalin at his core was intolerant. Dungy may be accepting of reformed prisoners, but intolerance of homosexuals is just as telling on his character as on others.
In other words, there is no rational basis on which his intolerance stands, other than a straying from the historical roots of what his religion used to stand for.
I guess we'll just disagree. I didn't see anything about Dungy that indicated intolerance. He just said that as a coach he would not want the distraction. That indicates an intolerance to distractions to me, not intolerance to gays. Now, of course we know his religion doesn't believe that homosexuality is accepted by God, but I haven't seen him advocate harming or condemning gays in any way. I know we're not going to see eye to eye on this, but I just see hate often too easily accepted as rightious.
I have no problem with coaches being consistent. Dungy is not.
I just think the views he holds sincerely are ignorant and biogted. And while not intentional, it causes his opinions to be those of a discriminatory nature. The problem is that in this day and age, and with Dungy's life having traveled to many different cities and being exposed to many cultures and being tied into the "modern day," there is no excuse for him to still hold those ignorant beliefs.
So while his views may not be rooted in hatred, the end result is the same.
Quote:
I don't think so. If you think a view is intolerant, by all means say so. I'm having trouble with spewing hatred and saying its ok 'cause you're wrong. Now, if you direct hatred at an obviously hateful person that's something else. The problem with that is what we would define as hateful. I didn't see anything hateful about Dungy, just misguided beliefs that should be scrutinized.
actions speak louder than words, River Mike. just because Dungy is being gentlemanly about it doesn't mean that it's not hateful. he's saying that it it were up to him, he'd exclude this player from his locker room, and not on the basis of whether or not he's good enough to play. he may do that with a smile and a handshake, but at the end of the day, it's still discrimination and it's still exclusion and it's still a stigma that he's perpetuating and endorsing.
he may not be screaming "FAG!" but his actions most certainly do.
M, I won't argue with that. None of us knows what is in his heart, we can only go by his actions and words. You see hate there, I don't. You see harm there and that may very well be.
I just think the views he holds sincerely are ignorant and biogted. And while not intentional, it causes his opinions to be those of a discriminatory nature. The problem is that in this day and age, and with Dungy's life having traveled to many different cities and being exposed to many cultures and being tied into the "modern day," there is no excuse for him to still hold those ignorant beliefs.
So while his views may not be rooted in hatred, the end result is the same.
I agree. My only point is that a view held in ignorance should be countered with intelligence. Too often we assume hatred on someone's part and respond with hatred.
I think an organization in the NFL may legitimately be concerned about the "distraction" that Michael Sam would bring to the team. Just like in the case of Tebow, it's a guarantee that fans and the media will be clamoring to see this guy get out on the field . . . . and he may not be good enough to be in that position.
There's going to be a lot of outside pressure (maybe even internal pressure) to get Sam playing time, and I don't think its healthy for a team to have to deal with that. The coaches need to be made as free as possible to make personnel decisions.
Tim Tebow in Denver was a circus - nobody should argue that, or that it wasn't healthy for Denver. I think Sam presents the same situation potentially. The only way it doesn't become an issue is if he's talented enough to warrant the playing time . . . and as of right now noone knows if he'll be a good NFL player.
Consistency is the key for any cost-benefit analysis. Without any consistency to the costs you have no reliable analysis.
Further you need an actual quantifiable cost to drafting Sam. Or is the cost to drafting Sam any different from the cost of drafting other players who have their warts. This is the relevant cost. That being homosexual is a much higher cost and then any other problem that other players have. Using steroids smoking or any other examples. All players have warts.
And we must compare where Sam was drafted to other players available. A cost-benefit analysis is not done on a first round talent compared to a seventh round draft pick. So what were assuming with this analysis is that Sam was significantly different from other players drafted around him.
If Tony Dungy grew up and lived his entire life in poverty in a homogenous area with no access to education or exposure to different cultures, then I could understand that his ignorance were sincere and needed to be met with intelligence to show him that he's wrong.
However, given his station in life, I can only attribute his ignorance and bigoted viewpoints as those that he chooses to maintain.
If Tony Dungy grew up and lived his entire life in poverty in a homogenous area with no access to education or exposure to different cultures, then I could understand that his ignorance were sincere and needed to be met with intelligence to show him that he's wrong.
However, given his station in life, I can only attribute his ignorance and bigoted viewpoints as those that he chooses to maintain.
Paul, legitimate points
So I call BS on that. Any coach worthy of an NFL job should have absolutely no problem handling the media attention of Sam. Answering a couple of questions about Sam is really going to cause that much of an issue for the coach? GTFO here with that excuse.
I just don't believe the media aspect of this. A Professional coach should be able to handle that no problem. So I feel like what this is really about is the locker room. And that's what this issue is really about. How comfortable his teammates will be with integrating an open homosexual into their team and lives. How comfortable they will be with him in the showers. How comfortable the really religious players (and there are a lot of them) will be with a teammate who openly goes against their beliefs.
This is a team chemistry issue not some BS media attention issue like some of these guys are hiding behind. Coaches who think like Dungy are lazy cowards who clearly don't want the added responsibility of trying to deal with potential team chemistry issues. Dungy is nothing more than a hypocritical coward.
I don't actually think you have an irrelevant point. This is the first real day of training camp and we have way more interest in this thread. And we are not anywhere involved in the situation.
Quote:
His BDSM schtick is a huge distraction for BBI.
I don't actually think you have an irrelevant point. This is the first real day of training camp and we have way more interest in this thread. And we are not anywhere involved in the situation.
Controversy is always a big draw. Wait 'til we have some controversy in camp:)
This assumes that these players won't have their own issues that you will have to deal with.
People always forget that Michael Sam played at a large SEC conference school and won several awards for being a premier player. That has to factor in compared to some special-teams player from a lesser-known school.
You can't simplify a cost-benefit analysis of these issues simply because they lesson the argument that Sam will be a huge impediment to you as a coach.
As with Tebow and his distractions, all that mattered in the long run was whether or not he could play at the NFL level.
Also the supposed wart that Sam has is well known to the coach. Whereas the issues with other comparable players maybe not known at this point. That's an advantage for Sam in an analysis.
"We believe in equal rights and we do not discriminate in the LOCATION MASCOT organization. As such, Michael Sam will be evaluated purely as a football player. Not as a gay football player, not as a black football player, but as a football player wearing #96. Mr. Sam's personal life, as with any other player, will only be relevant should he violate the team's or league's personal conduct policy.
We hope that the media will share in our respect for Mr. Sam's equal rights and will treat him accordingly, evaluating him and his place on the team purely from a football perspective. As such, the team will not answer questions regarding Michael Sam's sexuality as doing so would be singling him out for his identity and not treating him as we would any other player.
Thank you and go LOCATION MASCOT"
Jelly?
On one hand his honesty is commendable, but on the other hand it's a little sad he feels that way.
And it's also ironic that he is honest with this particular issue and get blasted for being a phony. If he were being phony he probably would have done what I suggested. He might be a phony in some areas, but he can hardly be accused of that with regards to this topic.
I think Tebow has been associated with anti-gay groups, but there are a number of religious people who are tolerant and it's a bit unfair to homogenize religious people's thoughts on homosexuality.
Perhaps I'm misreading your last sentence, though, and you intended something differently than the way I read it.
It would be great if a HoF level player at the beginning of his career came out, although I do wonder why "coming out" matters because I believe the NFL players for the most part would be fine with it. The few stragglers won't make a difference. On any team, there will be players who dislike other players for any reason. I am sure some disliked Tebow for his views.
And that is: Dungy didn't say he we would avoid drafting Sam because he's gay. He said he'd avoid drafting him because of the distractions and issues that would follow his club.
Now, with that in mind, it's an idiotic statement. As the article noted, Dungy is the first African American head coach with a Super Bowl ring, so he of all people should push for every player getting an equal shot. If Sam was more than a 7th Round Draft pick, perhaps he would value the on-the-field contributions more than he detests the off-the-field distractions. I don't know. But to call him a bigot is dumber than his actual comments.
It would be great if a HoF level player at the beginning of his career came out, although I do wonder why "coming out" matters because I believe the NFL players for the most part would be fine with it. The few stragglers won't make a difference. On any team, there will be players who dislike other players for any reason. I am sure some disliked Tebow for his views.
Sam could be a HOF player. Nobody knows at this point. Adams is camp fodder, however.
And that is: Dungy didn't say he we would avoid drafting Sam because he's gay. He said he'd avoid drafting him because of the distractions and issues that would follow his club.
Now, with that in mind, it's an idiotic statement. As the article noted, Dungy is the first African American head coach with a Super Bowl ring, so he of all people should push for every player getting an equal shot. If Sam was more than a 7th Round Draft pick, perhaps he would value the on-the-field contributions more than he detests the off-the-field distractions. I don't know. But to call him a bigot is dumber than his actual comments.
It's not missing. People with higher critical thinking skills have figured it out.
He's a bigot because he's discriminating against someone based on something that isn't a personal choice. The only reason that Sam could be a "distraction" is sexual preference.
This is just so idiotic I don't know where to begin. So let's say Player X is being bombarded with question after question about whether or not he has issues playing with a gay player. Let's also say Player X actually is a bigot but is doing his best to not make homophobic public statements. He'll likely eventually fuck up, then perhaps other players who were less likely to make the same statements now feel they can do so since someone else took that first leap. Then all of a sudden the media is portraying the team as a bunch of homophobic cavemen.
Let's also say this team's head coach/GM drafting Sam because he thought he'd make a good football player, but now his team is under extensive stress due to... wait for it... the distraction caused by Sam being gay.
So to simplify all of this for you so you don't have to use your unrivaled critical thinking, just because the rest of the world deems something unacceptable and creates a distraction doesn't make the person who wants to avoid the mess in his locker room a bigot.. you fucking idiot.
Weak-willed? Yes. Poor at controlling his locker room? Certainly. Bigoted. No. But keep using your expert critical thinking skills to throw around grotesque terms about people you've never met.
Quote:
He's a bigot because he's discriminating against someone based on something that isn't a personal choice. The only reason that Sam could be a "distraction" is sexual preference.
This is just so idiotic I don't know where to begin. So let's say Player X is being bombarded with question after question about whether or not he has issues playing with a gay player. Let's also say Player X actually is a bigot but is doing his best to not make homophobic public statements. He'll likely eventually fuck up, then perhaps other players who were less likely to make the same statements now feel they can do so since someone else took that first leap. Then all of a sudden the media is portraying the team as a bunch of homophobic cavemen.
Let's also say this team's head coach/GM drafting Sam because he thought he'd make a good football player, but now his team is under extensive stress due to... wait for it... the distraction caused by Sam being gay.
So to simplify all of this for you so you don't have to use your unrivaled critical thinking, just because the rest of the world deems something unacceptable and creates a distraction doesn't make the person who wants to avoid the mess in his locker room a bigot.. you fucking idiot.
Weak-willed? Yes. Poor at controlling his locker room? Certainly. Bigoted. No. But keep using your expert critical thinking skills to throw around grotesque terms about people you've never met.
Mike.
The fact that you think so poorly of me actually makes me happy.
I won't address the fluff in your post, because, frankly, I should always remember you've never been worth responding to. I apologize for doing that.
However to some here, those distinctions can't be made. The name calling and self righteous glad you will die soon uglyness comes out. I would hope we were above the Buckyd style of discourse which you can see everyday on a certain other site.
But for the record, I stated a reasonable point about the distinction between bigotry and (weakly) wanting to avoid a distraction, you responded with really nothing other than "he's a bigot" and then backed off when you had no logical response.
Enjoy not responding to this, as well.
But for the record, I stated a reasonable point about the distinction between bigotry and (weakly) wanting to avoid a distraction, you responded with really nothing other than "he's a bigot" and then backed off when you had no logical response.
Enjoy not responding to this, as well.
Fantastic. Really, fantastic. A lack of an answer is not backing off, but if that's what you want to believe, go for it.
I'll choose my track record on this website, and everything I've said. Stand by every single point. And try to remember never to address anything substantive your way.
People like you are what kept me from showing my left handedness until my 20's.
It isn't a choice.
However to some here, those distinctions can't be made. The name calling and self righteous glad you will die soon uglyness comes out. I would hope we were above the Buckyd style of discourse which you can see everyday on a certain other site.
You're right that the discourse on this subject immediately descends into a less than fruitful discussion.
I don't agree with Dungy's views and find his reasoning on this subject pathetic. But you're right, the fact someone agrees with his views on homosexuality doesn't automatically mean they're agreeing with his religion.
Not giving a kid a chance at all, just because he has a different lifestyle outside the workplace from you...not unexpected from Mr Dungy, but I think this is one of those cases where people who stick too close to certain Biblical interpretations find themselves turned around in circles and contradicting themselves.
In summary, it's fine to take a risk and invite all the drama of someone who has had discipline/law problems, but someone who has admitted to being gay is not worth all the drama...Man, I coulda sworn the whole Vick thing (and Dungy backing him) was a way bigger story than M Sam has been, so I call BS on 'not wanting to deal with all of it'. He has made a personal judgement of this man, and it has nothing to do with the extraneous BS - Tony has made it clear previously he doesn't agree with who M Sam is, and would not want him for that reason no matter how good he is (or how many dogs he can drown)...
Do you disagree with this point? And this is a yes or no question. If you want to elaborate on why then sure, but I only request you also include a definitive yes or no as well.
Wuphat, well kicker used a black and white term. Bigot. So since you made a point about my compass, and considering I took issue with kicker referring to Dungy as a bigot, one would deduct that you agree with kicker's characterization.
If I'm wrong I do apologize. Please clarify. Do you agree with kicker that Dungy is a bigot?
I would not suggest that bigotry is necessarily motivated by hatred.
Bigotry implies Dungy wouldn't draft Sam because of his sexual orientation.
I appreciate your straightforward response and disagree with you.
I'd like to know how you came to attribute such things to me.
Quote:
who makes a decision based on their faith is a religious nut job? You realize many of you are intolerant and hating on Dungy because he is expressing his belief. The public made this Michael Sam issue into a media circus. I would not want the media hounding the team.
Yeah. Better that NFL teams are allowed to operate in the total media vacuum in which they used to. No spotlight. No questions. No pressure. Why can't it be like it used to be?? Before that one guy came along and suddenly the Media got all interested.
well said...
I hope Sam does well, but if the Giants has signed him, and I believe they had an offer ready, they would have likely made him sign something to preclude any TV shows, or distractions
has nothing to do with religion, has everything to do with Focus on the field
Wait. Are you saying that there are people out there that like short people?
I was asked whether I would have drafted Michael Sam and I answered that I would not have drafted him. I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team. At the time of my interview, the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael’s first season had been announced.
I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.
I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.
I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.
I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way—by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit.
The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they’re good enough to play. That’s my opinion as a coach. But those were not the questions I was asked.
What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.
I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.
I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.
I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field.
My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation.
Dungy comments on his comments - ( New Window )
2007 (talking about his support of an Indiana ban on same sex marriage):
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/colts/2007-03-21-dungy-remarks_N.htm
2011: (tweet in response to the President's gay marriage stance)
http://www.dennyburk.com/tony-dungy-on-pres-obamas-gay-marriage-stance/
But it's not that he has anything against gay people because of his religion.
He just doesn't want a media circus. (which he wasn't even talking about. He's actually saying that "something will happen" in the locker room. I imagine he's worried about Sam trying to snatch some sausage in the shower.)
What's he talking about here? Sure sounds like the locker room to me.
Yet in the quotes posted above he says the opposite?
His "adjusted" comment:
"[P]laying in the NFL is, and should be, about merit...I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction."
It would have been pretty easy for him to make the second (more precise) comment in the original interview. But he didn't. And if he believes playing in the NFL is based on merit, why would he pass on a guy due to a potential media distraction? Wouldn't that mean it wasn't about merit?
He knows he can't say it's because Sam is gay, so he throws out a red herring.
Does he really expect people won't see through?
He knows he can't say it's because Sam is gay, so he throws out a red herring.
Does he really expect people won't see through?
Ask MiLB. I'm sure he'll give you a nice yes or no answer.
He knows he can't say it's because Sam is gay, so he throws out a red herring.
Does he really expect people won't see through?
So much for not jumping to conclusions.
He says he wouldn't want the distraction in his locker room... so you... you know.. he obviously hates the gays!
Again, nuance is not your strong suit.
My reference to tebow is that his persona is that of a deeply religious person and i wanted to see if any Christians also had the same belief and feeling as Dungy has..
I find it almost impossible that he is the ONLY person who feels that way..
So this is what pushed you over the edge into saying Tony Dungy is a homophobic bigot? OK, I take it back. You didn't jump to conclusions at all.
Buuuuulllllshit. Guy's an asshole.
On Tuesday, via a statement released to multiple media outlets, Dungy defended Sam's right to play in the NFL while saying he gave an "honest answer," and that his comments were made several weeks ago when "the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael's first season had been announced."
"I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.
"I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.
"I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.
"I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way -- by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit," the statement read. "The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they're good enough to play. That's my opinion as a coach.
Mike and Mike
The Tampa Tribune's Ira Kaufman discusses his interview with Tony Dungy and Dungy's comments during the conversation about drafting Michael Sam.
More Podcasts »
"But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.
"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.
Nuance. Again, not your friend.
Umm... his original quote is what incited the entire discussion. Excuse me for assuming we're both aware of his original comment. You went on to say that his original comment coupled with his clarification lead you to the conclusion that Dungy is a homophobic bigot. And the fact that you would associate yourself with such distinct, heavy-handed words with the quotes above is startling.
Others have called him an asshole. I'd have a hard time arguing with that. It's an assholish thing to say. Be a man, run your squad and get everyone on the same page... winning a championship. You, however, take an absurd leap and use these words so carelessly.
Nuance. Again, not your friend.
Why try?
It's like punching yourself in the dick.
When I was referring to what Exit cited, I was referring to the first quote.
It was my mistake for not making that explicit.
Nuance. Again, not your friend.
Yeah, more bullshit here. At first it was just the things Cam and Exit outlined, now it's opinion you've apparently formed based on vague references to "statements over many years." Absolute nonsense.
And oddly enough, you asked me earlier when you at any point claimed Dungy's faith added to your assessment of his bigotry. Then a post or two later you're telling me to read Cam's posts where Dungy is quoted talking about the Lord and family values. Do you even know where you stand?
Right. They were. They were quotes regarding the Lord and family values.
So you want me to read Cam's quoted text (much of it quotes about Dungy's faith) then you want me to not deduct Dungy's faith contributed to your assessment that he's a bigot.
Again... complete, argumentative nonsense.
In fact, what I was doing in that post was illustrating that, like you were able to (correctly) assume that I used Dungy's religious leanings as part of my assessment, you used my known anti-religious bias to make your assessment of my position.
You see, you were able to use previous statements I've made over time to inform your opinion that I was using his religiosity as some basis of my opinion of him. You were correct. I wasn't saying you were wrong, I was just asking how you knew that when I hadn't explicitly stated it here.
Likewise, I was able to use my understanding of Dungy's religious leaning to inform my assessment of his position regarding Sam even though he hadn't explicitly stated it.
So much so, that offline, I told Brett I was laying the groundwork for this, that you'd fall for it, and not get it.
Congrats.
I guess I need critical thinking classes.
Secondly, as I noted, I used the information (that I "figured out" from your game, I guess?) to assess your opinion. You then had the opportunity to respond to me. Additionally, I think that considering my assessment was accurate, you wouldn't be offended by what I concluded?
You however have apparently imposed the same logic on far less information about Dungy (I've had far more interaction with you than you have with him, of course) to create truly dreadful labels. Bigot. Homophobic. And you state them carelessly. Does anyone get hurt? No, but it speaks to your character.
So again... congrats?
You seem to be ignoring that he's made them, because I'm certainly not saying that all religious people are homophobes or bigots.
You see, part of my informed opinion is that he's explicitly made comments that hint towards being anti-gay to some extent.
I acknowledged that when I said that it is odd a guy who constantly claims it's best to have more information before forming an opinion to use words as heavy-handed as the ones you've used to characterize someone who, you say, "hints" at homophobia.
And I know people hate the analogy, but folks have used religion to deny rights to others time and again. Yep, even in this country.
What I find sad is that although it has been done plenty, folks will recognize it in history and scoff at those that did it while willfully ignoring and even defending those that are currently doing it.
Go ahead and believe that fags will burn in hell or don't "agree" with their lifestyle (still haven't really figured out what the hell that is supposed to mean). That's your right. It isn't however your right to deny them the same rights that you have. All men are created equal, yada yada, yada...(excluding of course hispanics, asians, and wimmin)
Oh, and those worthless Irish drunks. Fuck them and the ginger scourge that they've unleashed on the world.
I'd suggest that if bigots and the willfully ignorant don't want to be called as such, they either take their medicine when it's called out, keep their opinions to themselves, or, and here's a wild fucking idea, re-evaluate those ideas and see if maybe they've somehow been mistaken.
I'd suggest that if bigots and the willfully ignorant don't want to be called as such, they either take their medicine when it's called out, keep their opinions to themselves, or, and here's a wild fucking idea, re-evaluate those ideas and see if maybe they've somehow been mistaken.
If you don't think "bigot" is a heavy-handed word then I certainly am not the one who needs to grow up, Wuphat. It is a life-long label of intolerance for some... In most cases, hopefully, it's deserved.
So when you call Tony Dungy a "homophobic bigot," and then diminish the strength of such terms, you prove that you have no business using them in the first place.
Depending on what country you're in.
And, no, bigot is not heavy handed if the shoe fits, and IMHO, it fits Dungy just fine.
And it's also my opinion that Dungy doesn't think he's being one. That doesn't make him any less of one from where I sit.
If Jadeveon Clowney was gay, he'd still be going #1 because the value is worth the distraction. But by reading Tony Dungy's other comments, it just seems like he's not a diehard homosexual fan.
There really won't be THAT much media attention with this story. There was barely a mention of Jason Collins during the NBA season. Sure they'll talk about him on Sportcenter if he gets cut or makes the team, and there's always a potential "NFL player says he doesn't agree with Michal Sam" story in the middle of the season. But I look at Jason Collins and I see a guy who was barely mentioned in the NBA this year. Why would Michael Sam create such a huge media frenzy when we just saw the lack of buzz that Jason Collins went through this past year? When Collins signed with the Nets, boom story. After that we went on with our lives.
This is 100% a team chemistry issue that Dungy is too much of a coward to admit to. He's hiding behind nonsense like "distractions from the media" when he's the same guy that supported Michael Vick, a player who was going to cause to cause a ton of distractions in the media. Makes no sense. He tried to cover up his hypocritical comments by making even more hypocritical comments. Dude is simply put a liar and a coward. The media distraction excuse is a joke. If you're a head coach and don't have the confidence in your ability to handle this kind of "distraction", you're a shitty coach.
Disillusioning.
(...Right, Tony?)
I also don't understand what him being the first Black Coach to win a SB has to do with anything..
I also don't understand what him being the first Black Coach to win a SB has to do with anything..
I didn't like it when Dungy supported Vick. I don't like Dungy's views on Sam. I wouldn't like it if Coughlin came out with these same comments. I don't think any of those views are inconsistent with one another, and I'd imagine most here have the same thinking.
Even if Dungy didn't support Vick, I would still find it incredibly easy to see right through his BS "media distraction" excuse.
Like I pointed out before, there are vast groups who point to their religious beliefs to object to something..see: being against gay marriage..
i think in this case. more are objecting to what Dungy said because of his support for Vick..Just my opinion..
I know I know there are many christians out there who do agree with a person who is gay..many..
I'm not sure self-fulfilling prophecies count.