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
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
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
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
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
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:)
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:)