"I Was An NFL Player Until I Was Fired By Two Cowards and a Bigot"

[Marco Polo]

The Vikings organization and the NFL could be sued if any of this is true from the special teams coordinator.

I can't imagine the depths of lawsuits that would accrue if any leader in my organization said some of the things that the special teams coordinator said.

Not to turn this into a Duck Dynasty/religion conversation but you can have your opinion, you just can't say those vile things ("nuke it until it glows") while representing your organization.

http://deadspin.com/i-was-an-nfl-pla...208214#replies

[Sully]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm not sure who you think my team is here (more vague hand-waving from you, I guess), unless you're talking about people who give both sides of this cultural clash a fair shake.



Your reluctance to be specific is the source of this communication problem, if it actually exists, not my reluctance to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Ok, Thanks!

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by Sully

Several years ago, as I was misunderstanding a joke someone had made, you said a great thing to me. You said, "words have meaning," or something close to that. I'm confident that I didn't read others' statements incorrectly, and I'm confident that what I typed conveyed my meaning accurately for those not interested in being contrarian. You've shown a proclivity for giving the benefit of the doubt to posters you feel are on "your team," in the past while expecting diamond-point precision from those who aren't. That's ok, it's well within your prerogative to view posters that way. But I hope you'll excuse me if, understanding that about you, I don't put much credence in your critique of my posting style. So thanks for taking the time to type out the lecture, and I hope it's meaningful to someone, but it's just not to me, at this point.

Well said.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Teens are NOT going to have sex JUST because they have a rubber. That is ****ing silly and something I'd expect someone over 50 to say.

Some teens will have sex because they think they're safe from pregnancy because of use of the condom. That's not silly, it's fact, and I'm not over 50.

Condoms, if used correctly, can greatly reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of both STIs and unintended pregnancies. Although the majority of adolescents believe that "sex without a condom is not worth the risk", many teens are misinformed about the protection that condoms provide against STIs and HIV/AIDS.[4]

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=condom-use

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by KC native

ITT make absurd comparisons of consenting adults' behavior to illegal acts.

Homosexual sexual activity was illegal in this country in the fairly recent past.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Homosexual sexual activity was illegal in this country in the fairly recent past.

And?

Comparing a sexual act between two consenting adults and molestation of a child is absurd.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by KC native

And?

Comparing a sexual act between two consenting adults and molestation of a child is absurd.

Thank you for demonstrating that you're not intellectually tall enough for this ride. It's impressive that it only took you one post to accomplish that.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Thank you for demonstrating that you're not intellectually tall enough for this ride. It's impressive that it only took you one post to accomplish that.

Says the poster that justifies his argument with absurd examples.

SNR nailed it. Just Pedophilin' By is a good name for you.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by KC native

Says the poster that justifies his argument with absurd examples.

SNR nailed it. Just Pedophilin' By is a good name for you.

You went from using the law as a defense to ignoring the law issue in one post, even though that's been dealt with many times before in this thread. You just don't have the brains for the discussion, and insulting my screen name only makes you look even more stupid.

Go back to the kids' table. There are adults talking here.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You went from using the law as a defense to ignoring the law issue in one post, even though that's been dealt with many times before in this thread. You just don't have the brains for the discussion, and insulting my screen name only makes you look even more stupid.

Go back to the kids' table. There are adults talking here.

Please point out where I said that, pedo.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by KC native

And?

Comparing a sexual act between two consenting adults and molestation of a child is absurd.

He's not comparing them. He's pointing out that people like JDiddy are perfectly happy denying what they mistakenly call "rights" to people on the basis of lifestyle choice if they don't approve of those lifestyles. For JDiddy and his defenders to say "but kids can't consent" is just to say that they have a particular reason to disapprove of that lifestyle not to invalidate Just Passin' By's point.

Maybe it would be easier to see his point if he'd have used polygamy or marriage between close relatives as examples. Then again, I think some of you are too emotional about this to see his point under any conditions.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You went from using the law as a defense to ignoring the law issue in one post, even though that's been dealt with many times before in this thread. You just don't have the brains for the discussion, and insulting my screen name only makes you look even more stupid.

Go back to the kids' table. There are adults talking here.

And just for the sake of showing you how ****ing stupid you are.

Ignore the law for a moment. Do you not see the absurdity of comparing two consenting adults activity to molestation and bestiality?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by KC native

And just for the sake of showing you how ****ing stupid you are.

Ignore the law for a moment. Do you not see the absurdity of comparing two consenting adults activity to molestation and bestiality?

Are they all "lifestyle choices"?

[KC native]

Originally Posted by patteeu

He's not comparing them. He's pointing out that people like JDiddy are perfectly happy denying what they mistakenly call "rights" to people on the basis of lifestyle choice if they don't approve of those lifestyles. For JDiddy and his defenders to say "but kids can't consent" is just to say that they have a particular reason to disapprove of that lifestyle not to invalidate Just Passin' By's point.

Maybe it would be easier to see his point if he'd have used polygamy or marriage between close relatives as examples. Then again, I think some of you are too emotional about this to see his point under any conditions.

And it's a ****ing absurd argument.

It doesn't matter if someone is a hetero or homo child molester. No one has the right/freedom to harm others while observing their rights/freedom. Molestation does harm. Equating it to a "lifestyle" choice is beyond absurd.

Denying an adult homosexual couple the same rights as hetero couples have is in no way comparable to molestation.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Are they all "lifestyle choices"?

Nice non-sequitor.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by KC native

Please point out where I said that, pedo.

I've already quoted your posts. Also, if you can't respond to me without the pedo nonsense, I'll put you on ignore and end this. Your inability to rationally discuss this does not mean that I have to put up with your childishness.

As I said, there are adults talking here.