Kaepernick Rejected...Fellow NFLers Whine

[Pogo]

No, I did NOT say that the anthem is played at sporting events "because it's been done that way." Again, just because it is a cultural tradition and unlikely to end soon, does not mean the reason is "because it's been done that way." I'm sure that plays a part for at least some people, but do you honestly think that no one has a reason for wanting the national anthem played at sports events other than "because it's been done that way"?

I wouldn't know what reason "no one" has, but it's what you gave as a basis immediately after denying that's what you were doing. And like before, you're about to do it again in the same post (below).

Popular pressure is just a reality of human society. And I'd like to point out that, despite your railing against it, the mob coercion you are so concerned about has not prevented players from kneeling during the anthem.

You have no way to know that, nor do I, but to the extent it's true, that's a good thing. Any time anyone stands up to mob coercion and says "no, I will not be coerced" --- we all win that game.

Conversely, when that coercion works and a player doesn't sit out what he would prefer to sit out, or a citizen doesn't sport a piece of clothing or a bumpersticker he/she would prefer to sport --- the mob wins. (Obviously I could say "the terrorists win" here and convey the same thing but you might get all fixated on the tree and miss the forest)

Personally I'm against the idea of the coercion mob winning. Maybe it's just me.

Check out the way coercion was handled in that link just above. The response was perfect.

I did not confirm "because we've always done it this way" as the reason the anthem is played at sports events. I merely put forth the opinion that that would be sufficient reason, were it the case. I'm not sure why you decided to break that paragraph off here, when it goes on to explain my point.

And there it is, reconfirmed yet again. You're saying here (again) that "because we've always done it this way" *IS* sufficient reason. Those are your own words.

 

[Pogo]

Have you ever met a person who is not made up of the functions of their mind? Their thought processes, personality traits, quirks and beliefs? I didn't say that a person's thought processes are the entirety of that person. However, just because something is only an aspect does not mean it is separate. Just because something can change doesn't mean it is not a part of a person. Again you seem to be using an all-or-nothing thought process.

Umm --- I think it's the other way 'round if you can't separate "thought process" from "personality trait", doncha think?

Again, personality traits are what each of us are made of; thought processes can be adopted, abandoned, modified, tweaked, improved, revised, introduced, whatever fits the occasion.

An old saying goes, "when the known facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Far as I know there is no old or new saying that goes "when the known facts change, I change my entire personality". We live, we learn, we adapt as necessary. When we found out that smoking brings cancer --- we stopped. No personality change needed. One believes X, one finds out X is not valid, one abandons X Natural progression.

And yes, one can have sin separate from the sinner. My point was that the people who use that expression often seem to be trying to excuse their hate for
a person or an aspect of a person by claiming it is only the sin they hate.

Regardless what might "seem", it's got nothing to do with anything I expressed, does it.

If a person tends to follow the group, would you not consider that a personality trait?

Of course not. How would it be?

Some of us are more gullible, others more cynical. Those would be personality traits. But neither one is incapable of adapting their thought process as needed.

Matter of fact the former, the gullible may be more susceptible to adopting some bogus belief but by the same token they're also more open to tweaking it as necessary.

What is it you are trying to get across here? Apparently it's not that people who oppose NFL players kneeling are comparable to Nazis, despite your continued use of Nazi examples. Are you just saying you disagree with the anthem being played at sports events? That you disagree with people feeling any obligation to stand during the anthem? That you disagree with people expressing their opinions that players should be fired for kneeling during the anthem? Do you think people should not be allowed to express such an opinion?

Sigh...............................................................................

 

[Montrovant]

Ummm.... nnnno. You can't make a case that somebody opining that "nothing should happen" is trying to control other people's behaviour. That just will not compute. Again, absurdity. There's only one camp trying to control what somebody else is doing here, and that is the active one.

This is so elementary as to not even need to be pointed out. One would think. Yet here it is.

I see. So you cannot compel someone to not do something? If a child is looking as if they are ready to grab a cookie from the kitchen counter, let's say, and I say "Don't!" I'm not compelling them to not act?

If the NFL is considering making a rule that players must stand during the playing of the national anthem, you don't think that anyone could compel them not to implement such a rule?

Made necessary by your ignoring the point. Clearly it's not working as you continue to ignore it. I can only lead the horse to water; I can't control the horse denying that the water is there.

If one is making (as am I) the point that some thought process is detrimental, then one has the responsibility (as do I) to explain WHY it's detrimental. Once I do that, "waah your brought up Hitler (terrorism, witches, baseball, whatever) is not a valid argument.

That would be important.....if I were arguing that your point is entirely invalid because you keep using Nazi comparisons. I have not done that. I said that using those comparisons is ridiculous, and it is. I've said that using those comparisons hurts your point, and it does, because it makes you seem less credible. It doesn't mean you are completely wrong, it means you are making a bad argument.

I don't know if he has. It's not even relevant.
Again, already mentioned this, this is the basis of a lawsuit he apparently filed. I don't know what happened or is happening with that suit, and I'm really not concerned with it. That's business stuff and it's not my interest.

It isn't relevant? You said this:

That's the whole bottom line --- it's optional, so one can opt in or opt out. When the zombified parrots decide that 'no you CAN'T opt out", that's when we have a problem. And here we are, aren't we. The question being, how come you or I can sit out the national anthem, yet Colin Kaepernick can't?

You are the one who brought it up. Maybe you shouldn't bring up irrelevant points.

 

[Montrovant]

No, I did NOT say that the anthem is played at sporting events "because it's been done that way." Again, just because it is a cultural tradition and unlikely to end soon, does not mean the reason is "because it's been done that way." I'm sure that plays a part for at least some people, but do you honestly think that no one has a reason for wanting the national anthem played at sports events other than "because it's been done that way"?

I wouldn't know what reason "no one" has, but it's what you gave as a basis immediately after denying that's what you were doing. And like before, you're about to do it again in the same post (below).

Popular pressure is just a reality of human society. And I'd like to point out that, despite your railing against it, the mob coercion you are so concerned about has not prevented players from kneeling during the anthem.

You have no way to know that, nor do I, but to the extent it's true, that's a good thing. Any time anyone stands up to mob coercion and says "no, I will not be coerced" --- we all win that game.

Conversely, when that coercion works and a player doesn't sit out what he would prefer to sit out, or a citizen doesn't sport a piece of clothing or a bumpersticker he/she would prefer to sport --- the mob wins. (Obviously I could say "the terrorists win" here and convey the same thing but you might get all fixated on the tree and miss the forest)

Personally I'm against the idea of the coercion mob winning. Maybe it's just me.

Check out the way coercion was handled in that link just above. The response was perfect.

I did not confirm "because we've always done it this way" as the reason the anthem is played at sports events. I merely put forth the opinion that that would be sufficient reason, were it the case. I'm not sure why you decided to break that paragraph off here, when it goes on to explain my point.

And there it is, reconfirmed yet again. You're saying here (again) that "because we've always done it this way" *IS* sufficient reason. Those are your own words.

OMG.

"Because we've always done it this way" is sufficient reason. I find it hard to believe that someone who so often fixates on language would not see the difference between saying that "because we've always done it this way" is the reason, and saying "because we've always done it this way" is sufficient reason, particularly when I also qualified with "were it the case." So, again, I did NOT say that the reason the anthem is played is merely "because we've always done it this way." I said that that reason would be good enough, because pretty much any reason would be good enough, because the NFL can do what it wants in regards to playing the anthem or not. Sheesh.

As to the mob coercion: Do you think that, if the NFL were to consider whether or not to make standing during the anthem mandatory for players, and the NFL decided not to based on the opinions of a large percentage of the fans, that would constitute coercion?

 

[Montrovant]

Umm --- I think it's the other way 'round if you can't separate "thought process" from "personality trait", doncha think?

Again, personality traits are what each of us are made of; thought processes can be adopted, abandoned, modified, tweaked, improved, revised, introduced, whatever fits the occasion.

An old saying goes, "when the known facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Far as I know there is no old or new saying that goes "when the known facts change, I change my entire personality". We live, we learn, we adapt as necessary. When we found out that smoking brings cancer --- we stopped. No personality change needed. One believes X, one finds out X is not valid, one abandons X Natural progression.

Now personality traits cannot be adopted, abandoned, modified, tweaked, improved, revised, introduced, etc.? Trait theory may consider them to be mostly stable, but even there I don't think they are considered completely unchanging.

But you know what? Who cares. Ignore the term personality traits. Doesn't matter.

Regardless what might "seem", it's got nothing to do with anything I expressed, does it.

Since you are the one that brought up the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin," yeah, it has to do with that. You keep saying things, then wondering why I comment about them.

Of course not. How would it be?

Some of us are more gullible, others more cynical. Those would be personality traits. But neither one is incapable of adapting their thought process as needed.

Matter of fact the former, the gullible may be more susceptible to adopting some bogus belief but by the same token they're also more open to tweaking it as necessary.

Again, doesn't matter. Thought processes, not personality traits, fine.

Sigh...............................................................................

You've clearly gone beyond simply saying you don't like mob mentality, so I'm trying to narrow things down a bit. Even with that, are you proposing a way to prevent the sort of mob mentality you don't like, or just saying "it's bad" in an extremely long-winded fashion?

 

[Montrovant]

It turns out that Eric Reid, former 49ers safety, is filing his own collusion suit against the NFL with the same lawyer as Kaepernick. Reid also regularly knelt during the anthem, although apparently he's said he won't be doing so anymore.

I'm very curious what evidence they may have.

Free-agent safety Eric Reid files grievance under CBA

 

[Pogo]

Ummm.... nnnno. You can't make a case that somebody opining that "nothing should happen" is trying to control other people's behaviour. That just will not compute. Again, absurdity. There's only one camp trying to control what somebody else is doing here, and that is the active one.

This is so elementary as to not even need to be pointed out. One would think. Yet here it is.

I see. So you cannot compel someone to not do something? If a child is looking as if they are ready to grab a cookie from the kitchen counter, let's say, and I say "Don't!" I'm not compelling them to not act?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? That's not in ANY way the same thing.

If your example's parent issues that no-cookie edict, then that parent is actively doing something to control them. If that parent simply ignores it and leaves it up to the child, THAT is opining "nothing should happen" and doing nothing.

If the NFL is considering making a rule that players must stand during the playing of the national anthem, you don't think that anyone could compel them not to implement such a rule?

Same mischaracterization of what I posted. You seem to be doing this a lot.

Made necessary by your ignoring the point. Clearly it's not working as you continue to ignore it. I can only lead the horse to water; I can't control the horse denying that the water is there.

If one is making (as am I) the point that some thought process is detrimental, then one has the responsibility (as do I) to explain WHY it's detrimental. Once I do that, "waah your brought up Hitler (terrorism, witches, baseball, whatever) is not a valid argument.

That would be important.....if I were arguing that your point is entirely invalid because you keep using Nazi comparisons. I have not done that. I said that using those comparisons is ridiculous, and it is. I've said that using those comparisons hurts your point, and it does, because it makes you seem less credible. It doesn't mean you are completely wrong, it means you are making a bad argument.

"Bad" in the sense that you cannot --- dare I say will not --- listen to it, preferring to veer off into "Look! Nazis!". Which is a deflection.

I don't know if he has. It's not even relevant.
Again, already mentioned this, this is the basis of a lawsuit he apparently filed. I don't know what happened or is happening with that suit, and I'm really not concerned with it. That's business stuff and it's not my interest.

It isn't relevant? You said this:

That's the whole bottom line --- it's optional, so one can opt in or opt out. When the zombified parrots decide that 'no you CAN'T opt out", that's when we have a problem. And here we are, aren't we. The question being, how come you or I can sit out the national anthem, yet Colin Kaepernick can't?

Once AGAIN unrelated to the quote cited. You're asking about whether teams as a collective won't hire the guy on this basis. Again, I don't know and I don't care. It's not related to my bolded quote above at all. A second fatally flawed comparison. So no, of course it's not relevant.

 

[Montrovant]

Once AGAIN unrelated to the quote cited. You're asking about whether teams as a collective won't hire the guy on this basis. Again, I don't know and I don't care. It's not related to my bolded quote above at all. A second fatally flawed comparison. So no, of course it's not relevant.

Unrelated?! You claim that Kaepernick has been prevented from kneeling during the anthem. I respond that he can kneel during the anthem if he wants to, and continued doing so while he was still employed in the NFL. How can my responding directly to something you stated be unrelated?

You made a claim, I pointed out it is incorrect. What other relationship is required? Why not just say something like: "I was mistaken that Kaepernick can't sit out the anthem, oops. It isn't my point." I don't see how pointing out that Kaepernick isn't prevented from sitting out the anthem is unrelated to a quote claiming Kaepernick can't sit out the anthem.

 

[Slimdugger99]

Meh...screw off at work...get canned.

I do not know of any job where you have to stand for the NA every time you go to work. Do you stand and put your hand on your heart every game at home, yet someone may go to a few games a season, but they are working and have to do it every game. Really?

We quit the Pledge of Allegiance in schools a long time ago.

His protest had nothing to do with the anthem until Trump saw political advantage in claiming that it did. Every white entity in the country jumped on that big fat lie with both feet because they sure weren’t prepared to address the immense race problems Kaepernick was referencing. That fact has been pointed out from the beginning but all the talking heads want to discuss is Trumps big fat lie. Give me a break.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Penelope]

Dirt bag is rejected by fans and the NFL owners. Hey asshole...should have stood up for our nation which offers the most opportunities and freedoms on earth.
NFL players slam owners in heated meeting for leaving Colin Kaepernick ‘hung out to dry,' report says

I stand with the kneelers.

I bet you do.View attachment 190163
Totally disrespectful.

Who are in those graves, dead from Vietnam, Iraq, WWII or WWI. Now that I think about it we really had no reason to fight any of those wars.

 

[Penelope]

Dirt bag is rejected by fans and the NFL owners. Hey asshole...should have stood up for our nation which offers the most opportunities and freedoms on earth.
NFL players slam owners in heated meeting for leaving Colin Kaepernick ‘hung out to dry,' report says

What the fuck does football have to do with "our nation"?

Hm?

I know, I know --- you can't answer that. No shit.


/thread

Nothing because NFL has been rejected by the American people.

You do like Trump does, speak for all americans, I'm an American and I watch the NFL.

 

[Penelope]

Everyone here that is against the kneelers, I wonder if at home you stand to attention and put their hand over their heart when the SSB is played on TV. I bet you do not do that. Case closed.

 

[Montrovant]

Meh...screw off at work...get canned.

I do not know of any job where you have to stand for the NA every time you go to work. Do you stand and put your hand on your heart every game at home, yet someone may go to a few games a season, but they are working and have to do it every game. Really?

We quit the Pledge of Allegiance in schools a long time ago.

NFL players don't have to stand every time they go to work. They work far more than just game days, so even if they had to stand as part of those 16 games per year, it would be a small percentage of their working days.

 

[Montrovant]

Meh...screw off at work...get canned.

I do not know of any job where you have to stand for the NA every time you go to work. Do you stand and put your hand on your heart every game at home, yet someone may go to a few games a season, but they are working and have to do it every game. Really?

We quit the Pledge of Allegiance in schools a long time ago.

His protest had nothing to do with the anthem until Trump saw political advantage in claiming that it did. Every white entity in the country jumped on that big fat lie with both feet because they sure weren’t prepared to address the immense race problems Kaepernick was referencing. That fact has been pointed out from the beginning but all the talking heads want to discuss is Trumps big fat lie. Give me a break.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kaepernick's protest may not have been about the national anthem, but he did choose to use the anthem for his protest.

 

[Penelope]

Meh...screw off at work...get canned.

I do not know of any job where you have to stand for the NA every time you go to work. Do you stand and put your hand on your heart every game at home, yet someone may go to a few games a season, but they are working and have to do it every game. Really?

We quit the Pledge of Allegiance in schools a long time ago.

His protest had nothing to do with the anthem until Trump saw political advantage in claiming that it did. Every white entity in the country jumped on that big fat lie with both feet because they sure weren’t prepared to address the immense race problems Kaepernick was referencing. That fact has been pointed out from the beginning but all the talking heads want to discuss is Trumps big fat lie. Give me a break.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kaepernick's protest may not have been about the national anthem, but he did choose to use the anthem for his protest.

Well he was forced into the platform by the NG and Army , they are looking for recruits, I read they have lowered their standards.

 

[Penelope]

Meh...screw off at work...get canned.

I do not know of any job where you have to stand for the NA every time you go to work. Do you stand and put your hand on your heart every game at home, yet someone may go to a few games a season, but they are working and have to do it every game. Really?

We quit the Pledge of Allegiance in schools a long time ago.

NFL players don't have to stand every time they go to work. They work far more than just game days, so even if they had to stand as part of those 16 games per year, it would be a small percentage of their working days.

Only when on display, take politics out of football and all sports. Do you stand for the SSB at home?

 

[Montrovant]

Meh...screw off at work...get canned.

I do not know of any job where you have to stand for the NA every time you go to work. Do you stand and put your hand on your heart every game at home, yet someone may go to a few games a season, but they are working and have to do it every game. Really?

We quit the Pledge of Allegiance in schools a long time ago.

NFL players don't have to stand every time they go to work. They work far more than just game days, so even if they had to stand as part of those 16 games per year, it would be a small percentage of their working days.

Only when on display, take politics out of football and all sports. Do you stand for the SSB at home?

I don't necessarily stand at an event, let alone at home. That doesn't change the fact that even if players were forced to stand for the national anthem at every game (which they are not), they would not "have to stand for the NA every time [they] go to work," as you said in the post I quoted.

 

[Montrovant]

Meh...screw off at work...get canned.

I do not know of any job where you have to stand for the NA every time you go to work. Do you stand and put your hand on your heart every game at home, yet someone may go to a few games a season, but they are working and have to do it every game. Really?

We quit the Pledge of Allegiance in schools a long time ago.

His protest had nothing to do with the anthem until Trump saw political advantage in claiming that it did. Every white entity in the country jumped on that big fat lie with both feet because they sure weren’t prepared to address the immense race problems Kaepernick was referencing. That fact has been pointed out from the beginning but all the talking heads want to discuss is Trumps big fat lie. Give me a break.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kaepernick's protest may not have been about the national anthem, but he did choose to use the anthem for his protest.

Well he was forced into the platform by the NG and Army , they are looking for recruits, I read they have lowered their standards.

I'm not sure I understand this post. How was Kaepernick forced to use the national anthem as a platform for his protest?

 

[Penelope]

Meh...screw off at work...get canned.

I do not know of any job where you have to stand for the NA every time you go to work. Do you stand and put your hand on your heart every game at home, yet someone may go to a few games a season, but they are working and have to do it every game. Really?

We quit the Pledge of Allegiance in schools a long time ago.

NFL players don't have to stand every time they go to work. They work far more than just game days, so even if they had to stand as part of those 16 games per year, it would be a small percentage of their working days.

Only when on display, take politics out of football and all sports. Do you stand for the SSB at home?

I don't necessarily stand at an event, let alone at home. That doesn't change the fact that even if players were forced to stand for the national anthem at every game (which they are not), they would not "have to stand for the NA every time [they] go to work," as you said in the post I quoted.

They are forced to stand at every game, they never use to even come out of the dugout for the SSB. You are right, only at games when they are on display, showing their loyalty to a song about when they (the blacks) were still slaves.

 

[Montrovant]

Meh...screw off at work...get canned.

I do not know of any job where you have to stand for the NA every time you go to work. Do you stand and put your hand on your heart every game at home, yet someone may go to a few games a season, but they are working and have to do it every game. Really?

We quit the Pledge of Allegiance in schools a long time ago.

NFL players don't have to stand every time they go to work. They work far more than just game days, so even if they had to stand as part of those 16 games per year, it would be a small percentage of their working days.

Only when on display, take politics out of football and all sports. Do you stand for the SSB at home?

I don't necessarily stand at an event, let alone at home. That doesn't change the fact that even if players were forced to stand for the national anthem at every game (which they are not), they would not "have to stand for the NA every time [they] go to work," as you said in the post I quoted.

They are forced to stand at every game, they never use to even come out of the dugout for the SSB. You are right, only at games when they are on display, showing their loyalty to a song about when they (the blacks) were still slaves.

They are not forced to stand. If they were, how could there have been such controversy from players not standing during the playing of the anthem?