S
steubbigred
Posts: 1,392
May 13, 2014 10:10am
Michael Sams Vs Tim Tebow . One man will get all the support, protection ,and media bias that we all can imagine , while the other man was made a pariah and a so called "media distraction" who was toxic to have on a NFL team. This whole country is sick and twisted.
Automatik
Posts: 14,632
May 13, 2014 10:12am
lol...Tebow, toxic?
Newflash: He wasn't any good either. He and Sam will share the same NFL fate.
Newflash: He wasn't any good either. He and Sam will share the same NFL fate.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
May 13, 2014 10:24am
Can one claim "media bias" when he is a member of the media?steubbigred;1615675 wrote:Michael Sams Vs Tim Tebow . One man will get all the support, protection ,and media bias that we all can imagine , while the other man was made a pariah and a so called "media distraction" who was toxic to have on a NFL team. This whole country is sick and twisted.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
May 13, 2014 10:36am
Tebow's "problem" was that he refused to change positions and insisted on being a QB even though he would have been nothing more than a gimmick usable maybe 5 or 6 plays a game. He wasn't ever going to be a prototype NFL QB.Automatik;1615677 wrote:lol...Tebow, toxic?
Newflash: He wasn't any good either. He and Sam will share the same NFL fate.
Sam's problem is that he is ludicrously undersized as a DE. And he isn't an athletic freak like Lawrence Taylor by any stretch of the imagination.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
May 13, 2014 10:37am
I'm not making facts up. I'm asking why we allow discrimination against tolerant people who don't accept a certain lifestyle but provide those with protection for living a certain lifestyle. Should companies be allowed to forgo hiring someone because they smoke or because they do not smoke? That is who they are and not what they do; same logic as the gays.queencitybuckeye;1615628 wrote:It isn't, but don't stop making up facts to support your argument as opposed to using real ones.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
May 13, 2014 10:40am
Of course you are, now you've switched to horrible analogies.sleeper;1615697 wrote:I'm not making facts up.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
May 13, 2014 10:42am
My analogy isn't horrible. You don't want to address it because the logic disrupts your entire argument.queencitybuckeye;1615701 wrote:Of course you are, now you've switched to horrible analogies.
Tolerance goes both ways. When are the gays going to grow up?
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
May 13, 2014 10:54am
Well said.like_that;1615647 wrote:I don't really see the problem with this. His son is very young and so far has probably grown up seeing only a man and a woman kiss. It's not surprising at all that he had a "DAFUQ?!?!" reaction to it. I am sure his son would have the same type of reaction if he walked in on vdubbs watching porn. In that same scenario im sure vdubbs would have changed the channel as well. You can be tolerant and support others' way of life and also wish not to see it. I don't see the problem with that. I don't really give a fuck if you are gay or straight, and I believe gay marriages should be recognized, however I will openly admit that it still makes me uncomfortable to watch two men go in full out make out sessions. Does it mean I am intolerant to their way of life? No, I just rather not watch it. It's the same shit when there are sexually explicit gay scenes in movies/shows (I.e. Wolf of Wall Street, true blood, californication, etc). I don't really feel like watching that stuff, so sorry I'm not sorry that I turn my head away when those type of scenes come on.
Say is he trolling all you want, but COA, your posts are a prime example of what sleeper is talking about. Gay activists have taken such an extreme approach that it is off putting for a lot of people and that includes people like me who support their cause. They take the "we believe in this and if you don't you are an intolerant piece of shit closed minded red neck!!!!!" approach. Instead of taking a peaceful approach to preach their cause, they verbally attack anybody that isn't on their side. I assume this is an attempt place fears on others to not provide their opposing stance.
I just find it very hypocritical that the same people who are preaching tolerance and open mindedness are the same people who attack others for not having the same views. Perhaps these people grew up a certain way and it will take a bit more time for them to come around... Attacking them sure won't help. Yes, there will be some old people who will never change their stance, but fortunately our society changes by each era and as a whole we become more tolerant. It happened with African Americans and women in this country, and it will happen for gays.
In summary, I agree with sleeper, some people need to just grow the fuck up.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
May 13, 2014 11:06am
"Tolerance goes both ways."
This is the key statement. We should all be tolerant, but tolerance does NOT mean acceptance, and it certainly does NOT mean praise. Forget the Sam situation, and focus on more common situations if discussions about homosexuality makes some people uncomfortable.
Many heterosexual couples live together prior to marriage (us included), tolerance is family members not being judgmental about it and respecting what the couple does in their own home. That doesn't mean they have to accept it - if an unmarried couple visits their house and they wish for them to sleep in separate bedrooms that is fine, their house - their rules, they don't have to accept that the couple normally sleeps together. And most certainly the couple shouldn't expect anyone to give them a cookie for living together before marriage.
Somewhere along the line conventional wisdom trampled on the meaning of tolerance into something it isn't.
This is the key statement. We should all be tolerant, but tolerance does NOT mean acceptance, and it certainly does NOT mean praise. Forget the Sam situation, and focus on more common situations if discussions about homosexuality makes some people uncomfortable.
Many heterosexual couples live together prior to marriage (us included), tolerance is family members not being judgmental about it and respecting what the couple does in their own home. That doesn't mean they have to accept it - if an unmarried couple visits their house and they wish for them to sleep in separate bedrooms that is fine, their house - their rules, they don't have to accept that the couple normally sleeps together. And most certainly the couple shouldn't expect anyone to give them a cookie for living together before marriage.
Somewhere along the line conventional wisdom trampled on the meaning of tolerance into something it isn't.
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
May 13, 2014 11:22am
And with Tebow, it was less of him being a media distraction (and let us not forget that the media LOVED Tebowmania in general and did their best to force him down our throats at all times -- it's not like there's this major difference in how they treated him and how they're treating Sam) and more of a fanbase distraction where any team that was going to have him as QB was going to have hordes of fans screaming for him to be the man whether he was a decent long-term option or not. Which is why a crap franchise like Jacksonville (in Florida, where he was a college hero) turned their noses up at him — they didn't have the faith that he'd be their guy at QB and knew if they signed him and didn't give him every opportunity to be the man regardless of actual performance, they'd be utterly skewered by his fanbase.Manhattan Buckeye;1615695 wrote:Tebow's "problem" was that he refused to change positions and insisted on being a QB even though he would have been nothing more than a gimmick usable maybe 5 or 6 plays a game. He wasn't ever going to be a prototype NFL QB.
Sam's problem is that he is ludicrously undersized as a DE. And he isn't an athletic freak like Lawrence Taylor by any stretch of the imagination.
In short, in comparing the two, both had the love of the sports media and their own fanbases that likely were more fans of the player than the game due to either being a loud and proud Christian or an out-of-the-closet homosexual. Both also are/were looked at as substandard pros for their position, but outlets know they'll get attention and so they focus on them more than players who are more deserving in a pure "on the field" way.
S
steubbigred
Posts: 1,392
May 13, 2014 11:33am
He is now (Tebow) part of the media ,but during his playing career he was slammed quit a bit on many ESPN shows. Those same guys that slammed Tebow are defending M. Sams vigorously. I think it's a little messed up. I have nothing against Sams.queencitybuckeye;1615686 wrote:Can one claim "media bias" when he is a member of the media?
I notice if your evangelical in this country and your a big name ,you get attacked or ridiculed . It's just the way I see it.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
May 13, 2014 11:38am
While I'll gladly admit to probably watching less ESPN than others around here, most of my memories of Tebow being "slammed" consisted of "great kid, lousy quarterback". IOW, the truth.steubbigred;1615741 wrote:He is now (Tebow) but during his playing career he was slammed quit a bit on many ESPN shows.
Automatik
Posts: 14,632
May 13, 2014 11:39am
GTFO. The media LOVED Tebow.steubbigred;1615741 wrote:He is now (Tebow) but during his playing career he was slammed quit a bit on many ESPN shows. Those same guys that slammed Tebow are defending M. Sams vigorously. I think it's a little messed up. I have nothing against Sams.
I notice if your evangelical in this country and your a big name ,you get attacked or ridiculed . It's just the way I see it.
The only knocks, which were warranted, were due to his bad play and lack of NFL level skill. Tebow and Sam aren't much different in regards to media generated hoopla.
pmoney25
Posts: 1,787
May 13, 2014 11:51am
If anything this thread taught us that sleeper and fundamentalist Christians do have something in common.
S
steubbigred
Posts: 1,392
May 13, 2014 12:24pm
True but I also heard many stories of teams shying away from Tebow because of the circus . Sams will bring a circus to any team he ends up with as well.queencitybuckeye;1615742 wrote:While I'll gladly admit to probably watching less ESPN than others around here, most of my memories of Tebow being "slammed" consisted of "great kid, lousy quarterback". IOW, the truth.
S
steubbigred
Posts: 1,392
May 13, 2014 12:27pm
I watched Tebow beat my Steelers in the playoffs and also beat my Buckeyes in the title game. The guy was no slouch and in my opinion he was better than many gave him credit for. The guys on many ESPN shows slammed the guy for a multitude of issues and some made excuses besides the talent issue for not wanting him on the they're team . Mainly the the media circus. The media did not love Tebow except for FOX . Some guys on ESPN backed Tebow up but not much.Automatik;1615744 wrote:GTFO. The media LOVED Tebow.
The only knocks, which were warranted, were due to his bad play and lack of NFL level skill. Tebow and Sam aren't much different in regards to media generated hoopla.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
May 13, 2014 12:30pm
If so, and unless he's turns out to be a whole lot more of a player than most people believe, the circus will be a short run.steubbigred;1615782 wrote:True but I also heard many stories of teams shying away from Tebow because of the circus . Sams will bring a circus to any team he ends up with as well.
G
Gblock
May 13, 2014 12:36pm
for the first time ever Like that says something i agree with. the problem is those same uber religous types who use the bible to defend their stance only apply it to the gays but give passes for divorce, premarital sex and drugs etc...you cant pick and choose in my book if you want to use that argument. It is natrual to be uncomforatble tho, especially if you have never been exposed. My mother is a JW and she doesnt accept any of that. when i go home with my female gf we have to stay in seperate rooms and im a man im 40 lol
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
May 13, 2014 12:42pm
OMG Coach Gundy is now posting here. Seriously though, we were 30 when we got married and we were never allowed to sleep in the same bedroom at either of our parents' houses until we got married.
cruiser_96
Posts: 7,536
May 13, 2014 12:45pm
Gblock: some of us do apply it to divorce, sex outside of marriage, drugs, etc. Sexual immorality is a very large pie. Homosexuality is a small portion of the overall graph.
G
Gblock
May 13, 2014 12:48pm
cruiser_96;1615810 wrote:Gblock: some of us do apply it to divorce, sex outside of marriage, drugs, etc. Sexual immorality is a very large pie. Homosexuality is a small portion of the overall graph.
ive never seen someone ostricized for getting a divorce the same way someone is for being gay...ever. only a few times for the others mentioned and those were extreme cases
cruiser_96
Posts: 7,536
May 13, 2014 1:00pm
Ok.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
May 13, 2014 1:01pm
I'd say the stigma was similar, albeit two generations apart.Gblock;1615814 wrote:ive never seen someone ostricized for getting a divorce the same way someone is for being gay...ever. only a few times for the others mentioned and those were extreme cases
cruiser_96
Posts: 7,536
May 13, 2014 1:05pm
Yup.queencitybuckeye;1615827 wrote:I'd say the stigma was similar, albeit two generations apart.
Give it time, Gblock!
This is why I think Huxley (Brave New World) was more spot-on than Orwell (1984).
Whatevs.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
May 13, 2014 1:06pm
Unfortunately rare, but it happened as per QCB's point more often years ago. There was a time when divorced people (usually women) couldn't take communion or be members of many churches and certainly couldn't have a second church wedding. Fortunately, we've evolved past that stage.queencitybuckeye;1615827 wrote:I'd say the stigma was similar, albeit two generations apart.