All things offseason discussion part II

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Because if someone were to say they wouldn't draft a black player in this day and age, it would be straight up racial discrimination. What distraction would a straight male black player who played college ball at a high level bring?

If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him. He's not "discriminating" against Sam because he's gay, but because of the distraction he would bring. There's a difference.

Jackie Robinson was worth every bit of distraction he brought, being one of the best major league players ever and all. Sam might not even make the Rams' roster. I think the distraction versus what you get out of the distraction should definitely play a part.

I think if you were an NFL coach, you would have a different view. Football isn't all about talent. It's about teamwork, camaraderie, and all that good stuff. Not saying definitively the Rams won't play well together because of Sam, but Dungy apparently thinks things might not work so well over there. And, according to Derrick Brooks, it's likely that's a near-unanimous consensus among NFL teams.

First, I get the "teamwork, camaraderie" aspect and its importance. Also, I understand your premise that refusal to draft a black player b/c their blackness would allegedly create distraction is an obvious ruse. However, neither of these alters the fundamental question: Is it okay to make roster decisions based gender-preference. Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?

I think it a given that, but for his homosexuality, Sam was a draft worthy player. Thus, the question remains: Is it permissible to say "You're gay, I won't draft you b/c you're a marginal talent and your gender-preference is likely to be a distraction."

For Dungy the distraction preventing Sam's drafting is his homosexuality. Dungy is discriminating based on gender-preference because it is the "but-for" causation of the alleged distraction. If Sam is not gay, no distraction and no prohibition on drafting a marginal player. Sam is gay, so deemed a distraction, and, thus, prohibition on drafting a marginal player.

Again, you can couch it however you want, but Dungy's reasoning for saying he wouldn't draft Sam ultimately turns on Sam's gender-preference and nothing else. To assert it is anything other than is "straight-up discrimination," is a denial of reality ["The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about State's rights."].

As for your statement: "If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him." As it applies to Sam, it is a logical fallacy.
The logical statement: "If x, but not y, then z."
In your statement: x= Sam is gay; y= a distraction; z= gets drafted

The logical fallacy is that the only way that Sam is "not a distraction" is if he is "not gay". Thus:

1. not y (not a distraction) = not x (not gay); consequently
2. y (distraction) = x (gay); thus,
3. If x, but not x, then z.

A result cannot occur conditioned on the simultaneous existence and nonexistence of "x". Because Sam is gay, Dungy will always assume he will be a distraction. [Again, if Sam were a first round talent, superstar then no gender based discrimination occurs. The gender based discrimination occurs only because Sam's talent does not outweigh the distraction caused by his gayness].

Discrimination is not inherently illegal - we could not function if we did not discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong. The question is not "Is Dungy discriminating based on gender preference?" b/c he is. The onlyquestion is whether this type of discrimination is permissible.

In the NFL is gender-preference based discrimination right or wrong in your book? Simple question. Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you"? [Again, from a different era - under this reasoning, it was fine to discriminate against marginal black players in the era of segregation b/c their distraction caused by their skin color outweighed their talent level].

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, I get the "teamwork, camaraderie" aspect and its importance. Also, I understand your premise that refusal to draft a black player b/c their blackness would allegedly create distraction is an obvious ruse. However, neither of these alters the fundamental question: Is it okay to make roster decisions based gender-preference. Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?

I think it a given that, but for his homosexuality, Sam was a draft worthy player. Thus, the question remains: Is it permissible to say "You're gay, I won't draft you b/c you're a marginal talent and your gender-preference is likely to be a distraction."

For Dungy the distraction preventing Sam's drafting is his homosexuality. Dungy is discriminating based on gender-preference because it is the "but-for" causation of the alleged distraction. If Sam is not gay, no distraction and no prohibition on drafting a marginal player. Sam is gay, so deemed a distraction, and, thus, prohibition on drafting a marginal player.

Again, you can couch it however you want, but Dungy's reasoning for saying he wouldn't draft Sam ultimately turns on Sam's gender-preference and nothing else. To assert it is anything other than is "straight-up discrimination," is a denial of reality ["The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about State's rights."].

As for your statement: "If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him." As it applies to Sam, it is a logical fallacy.
The logical statement: "If x, but not y, then z."
In your statement: x= Sam is gay; y= a distraction; z= gets drafted

The logical fallacy is that the only way that Sam is "not a distraction" is if he is "not gay". Thus:

1. not y (not a distraction) = not x (not gay); consequently
2. y (distraction) = x (gay); thus,
3. If x, but not x, then z.

A result cannot occur conditioned on the simultaneous existence and nonexistence of "x". Because Sam is gay, Dungy will always assume he will be a distraction. [Again, if Sam were a first round talent, superstar then no gender based discrimination occurs. The gender based discrimination occurs only because Sam's talent does not outweigh the distraction caused by his gayness].

Discrimination is not inherently illegal - we could not function if we did not discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong. The question is not "Is Dungy discriminating based on gender preference?" b/c he is. The onlyquestion is whether this type of discrimination is permissible.

In the NFL is gender-preference based discrimination right or wrong in your book? Simple question. Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you"? [Again, from a different era - under this reasoning, it was fine to discriminate against marginal black players in the era of segregation b/c their distraction caused by their skin color outweighed their talent level].

To both of your questions( Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you?", and "Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?"), absolutely. You can do whatever the heck you want to improve your football team, as long as it's within the NFL rules. Sort of like how kids on the playground always pick certain kids last because there are other kids who will ultimately help them win more. It may not be the kindest, or in Sam's case if he had remained unsigned or gets cut, the most popular by public opinion, but if you think a player will bring more distractions than he's worth, you can absolutely cut him or not sign him, gay or straight.

Your post leads me to believe that you think that if Sam is one of the best 53 on the Rams' team, he should remain on the team even if the distractions become so fierce that their locker room divides(unlikely, I know, but play along.) And the only reason you would keep him is because he's gay and it would be discriminatory to cut him. If Sam were straight and he became that big of a distraction, you would cut him immediately, even if he were one of the best 53, am I right?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

To both of your questions( Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you?", and "Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?"), absolutely. You can do whatever the heck you want to improve your football team, as long as it's within the NFL rules. Sort of like how kids on the playground always pick certain kids last because there are other kids who will ultimately help them win more. It may not be the kindest, or in Sam's case if he had remained unsigned or gets cut, the most popular by public opinion, but if you think a player will bring more distractions than he's worth, you can absolutely cut him or not sign him, gay or straight.

Just b/c it's legal, doesn't make it right. Sure, teams can cut him for any reason, and, yes, winning is the ultimate measurement. At the same time, where is the line. Again, using an extreme example, a coach for a winning team thinks his team will have better teamwork and camaraderie if the roster is composed only of black players. He manipulates the roster to achieve this result and continues to win. Acceptable? Hey, they win and a talented white player might either (a) disrupt the camaraderie or (b) create a distraction by being the only white guy on the team. Thus, even if more talented, the white guy is not going to be drafted/signed. Acceptable? Your only distinction from Sam's situation is that NOW such behavior is seen as blatantly impermissible. 60 years ago, was that reasoning right/ethical when used to prohibit blacks from playing on major league teams? If it was unethical then, why is it ethical now?

Additional, the whole concept that Sam's sexual orientation creates a distraction brings us back to NC Skins point way back when ... What kind of coach accepts this as a permissible distraction? Even if media driven.

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Your post leads me to believe that you think that if Sam is one of the best 53 on the Rams' team, he should remain on the team even if the distractions become so fierce that their locker room divides(unlikely, I know, but play along.) And the only reason you would keep him is because he's gay and it would be discriminatory to cut him. If Sam were straight and he became that big of a distraction, you would cut him immediately, even if he were one of the best 53, am I right?

Nothing is an absolute. Again, at what point does it become acceptable for teams to factor sexual orientation into roster decisions. If you believe I am saying never, I simply have not made myself clear. I don't know when. I haven't heard a persuasive argument leading to an imperative answer. On the other hand, it seems to me you are saying "Whenever they feel like it." If that is true, doesn't it give license to use "distractions" as a cover for unfair discrimination.

It's not a question of what can they do. It's a question of, ethically, what should they do. What level of distraction should a team bear to do the right thing?

None! Okay - why not?
Whatever level is necessary to do what is right! Okay, why?

Someone convince me.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, I get the "teamwork, camaraderie" aspect and its importance. Also, I understand your premise that refusal to draft a black player b/c their blackness would allegedly create distraction is an obvious ruse. However, neither of these alters the fundamental question: Is it okay to make roster decisions based gender-preference. Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?

I think it a given that, but for his homosexuality, Sam was a draft worthy player. Thus, the question remains: Is it permissible to say "You're gay, I won't draft you b/c you're a marginal talent and your gender-preference is likely to be a distraction."

For Dungy the distraction preventing Sam's drafting is his homosexuality. Dungy is discriminating based on gender-preference because it is the "but-for" causation of the alleged distraction. If Sam is not gay, no distraction and no prohibition on drafting a marginal player. Sam is gay, so deemed a distraction, and, thus, prohibition on drafting a marginal player.

Again, you can couch it however you want, but Dungy's reasoning for saying he wouldn't draft Sam ultimately turns on Sam's gender-preference and nothing else. To assert it is anything other than is "straight-up discrimination," is a denial of reality ["The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about State's rights."].

As for your statement: "If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him." As it applies to Sam, it is a logical fallacy.
The logical statement: "If x, but not y, then z."
In your statement: x= Sam is gay; y= a distraction; z= gets drafted

The logical fallacy is that the only way that Sam is "not a distraction" is if he is "not gay". Thus:

1. not y (not a distraction) = not x (not gay); consequently
2. y (distraction) = x (gay); thus,
3. If x, but not x, then z.

A result cannot occur conditioned on the simultaneous existence and nonexistence of "x". Because Sam is gay, Dungy will always assume he will be a distraction. [Again, if Sam were a first round talent, superstar then no gender based discrimination occurs. The gender based discrimination occurs only because Sam's talent does not outweigh the distraction caused by his gayness].

Discrimination is not inherently illegal - we could not function if we did not discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong. The question is not "Is Dungy discriminating based on gender preference?" b/c he is. The onlyquestion is whether this type of discrimination is permissible.

In the NFL is gender-preference based discrimination right or wrong in your book? Simple question. Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you"? [Again, from a different era - under this reasoning, it was fine to discriminate against marginal black players in the era of segregation b/c their distraction caused by their skin color outweighed their talent level].

I'm going to purchase Joe one of these. He can wear it under a sport coat into court or something, or during times like these.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As for your statement: "If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him." As it applies to Sam, it is a logical fallacy.
The logical statement: "If x, but not y, then z."
In your statement: x= Sam is gay; y= a distraction; z= gets drafted

The logical fallacy is that the only way that Sam is "not a distraction" is if he is "not gay". Thus:

1. not y (not a distraction) = not x (not gay); consequently
2. y (distraction) = x (gay); thus,
3. If x, but not x, then z.

A result cannot occur conditioned on the simultaneous existence and nonexistence of "x". Because Sam is gay, Dungy will always assume he will be a distraction. [Again, if Sam were a first round talent, superstar then no gender based discrimination occurs. The gender based discrimination occurs only because Sam's talent does not outweigh the distraction caused by his gayness].

The offseason is truly a living Hell.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

The offseason is truly a living Hell.

Based on the year round, 24/7 flood of information, analysis and activities of the current NFL reality, your assertion logically invalidates the existence of "a living hell." In your statement, "the offseason" = x and "a living hell"= y, and, further, x=y. In the current NFL, however, "the offseason" does not exist. Thus, x does not exist, and, therefore, y (its equal) cannot exist either.

Therefore, logically, you must be in Happy Funland on a year round basis.

[SirLK26]

JoeR, my position is simple. If any player is more of a hindrance than a help, for whatever reason, it is within both my moral rules and NFL's rules to release him. If you disagree, well, I can't convince you otherwise.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Based on the year round, 24/7 flood of information, analysis and activities of the current NFL reality, your assertion logically invalidates the existence of "a living hell." In your statement, "the offseason" = x and "a living hell"= y, and, further, x=y. In the current NFL, however, "the offseason" does not exist. Thus, x does not exist, and, therefore, y (its equal) cannot exist either.

Therefore, logically, you must be in Happy Funland on a year round basis.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Based on the year round, 24/7 flood of information, analysis and activities of the current NFL reality, your assertion logically invalidates the existence of "a living hell." In your statement, "the offseason" = x and "a living hell"= y, and, further, x=y. In the current NFL, however, "the offseason" does not exist. Thus, x does not exist, and, therefore, y (its equal) cannot exist either.

Therefore, logically, you must be in Happy Funland on a year round basis.

If this is Happy Funland then John Wayne Gacy must be the clown.

I WANT SOME DAMN FOOTBALL!

[over the mountain]

[Dirtbag59]

Ravens expect NFL to be “fair” and “judicious” to Ray Rice | ProFootballTalk

The fact that the NFL is tougher on recreational drug use then domestic violence is just disgusting.

[Dirtbag59]

Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't push Quick Reply. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved. Don't get involved.

[JoeRedskin]

Methinks this is not the first time Mr. Dungy has been less than enthusiastic about endorsing a player such as Sam. From a 2007 article:

In a recent appearance on the HBO series Costas Now, Colts coach Tony Dungy showed his true colors. Dungy, a devout Christian, was initially asked if he'd have a problem with having a Muslim, Jew, or atheist on his team. Dungy immediately answered no. He doesn’t proselytize to his players, he said. Costas followed up with the same question about an openly gay player.

And Dungy paused.

He actually paused and crossed his arms—in obvious discomfort—before responding with canned blather about letting the player know what he thinks, and what the Bible says. Dungy also said that if the player were good he'd have no problem with it. But if that's the case—why the pause? Why the discomfort?

Why the discomfort? Well - b/c its distracting, that why.

Tony Dungy on Homosexuality: Bigotry Is Bigotry | Bleacher Report

[dmek25]

facts are that sam is the first OPENLY gay player in the league, not the first GAY player.if he is good enough, he will make the team. dungy is obviously a bigot, preaching the lord's word, but not practicing it

[SmootSmack]

Broncos owner Pat Bowlen steps down to deal with Alzheimer's disease

[Chico23231]

Marshawn Lynch Apparently Ropes Off His Lamborghini When He Parks

lol...beastmode is probably my favorite player thats not a redskin. The fact its velvet rope...lol