If I were Mara and/or Shurmur. On the morning of a game I would put the names of the 46 players to be active that day into a hat and have one of the team captains pick from it. Whatever name is picked, that player gets to decide whether or not the team will remain in the locker room for the anthem or will stand at attention for it on the sideline.
This accomplishes three things:
1) First and foremost being that whatever it is they do, they do as a team.
2) The decision is made by a player (not someone from ownership or management).
3) The choice of player is random (and all inclusive of those who would be standing or sitting that day), so fairness in representation is assured. And given that it is a 16 game season, the sample set should be large enough that all demographic/socio-economic viewpoints are given a say).
is just you patiently and without implication bringing the conversation back to the debate at hand?
And, obviously those mothers had a double struggle, that war being far, far worse, than this one, those days far far far harder in terms of identity, than now, and yet they still stood by the flag like rocks.
So, by definition, what they had been through far beyond the scope of what you alluded to
and far beyond what either of us has probably dealt with, and thank God for that. Because if we think we have reasons....please. Not compared to them we didn't.
So, no, it's definitely not a simple
'duh, of course they did'
moment. Really? Have you lost a child in war?
Imagine the conflicting emotions for any parent!
No. You missed this entirely. It's not just flags...it's the context, a context that dwarfs anything we have direct reference to. WW1.
Seriously not that easy. You cannot just say,
" duh. Of course they did, nothing to see here, easy obvious thing that's normal'
It wasn't. It was a:
"for any parent as hard as fuck moment and -add in- what they may have had to deal with just to live in USA circa 1918" , moment.
And I think all that context is fairly obvious not needing to have been spelled out in the first instance.
It's just too easy to read from that snark script, and people aren't taking it.
Look at Steven Fry. He's far from a conservative and far from 'normative' or establishment type. But his dignity in that debate made Dawkins look like a wet swamp rat chewing on a dead baby's oatmeal.
Also, a quick word of advice: re-read your comments before you post them.
That statement of yours couldn't be further from the truth. It's clear that you are well-read and well-versed in world events, but time and time again, your posts are incomprehensible. I"m not sure if this is an intentional troll job to screw with posters or how you express your thoughts, but what you are hearing in your head is not what is coming out in print.