Football 49ers cornerback: No gays allowed

TheGuardian · 01-30-2013, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcan

This is patently false. The whole argument. So if I don't like black people eating in the same restaurant as me, that's NOT bigotry, that's just a preference? Good luck with that. As for people hating on religious people, that would also be wrong. But we don't see a lot of 'no Christians allowed' signs do we? Name one instance in your whole life where a religious person was treated with this sort of institutionalized intolerance and I'll give you rep. Oh wait, never mind... Muslims are getting pretty rude welcome these days by the same kinds of bigots who don't want gays anywhere near them.

I haven't seen a "no gays allowed" sign in a ****ing team locker room either. Have you?

And maybe muslims should quit blowing shit up and killing people in the name of Allah? Stereotypes exist for a reason.

Quote:

Now, if he had only said that he thought the idea of two dudes together was kinda gross, I wouldn't call that bigotry. That would be a preference, but saying that he wouldn't want them on the team at all is where he crosses the line. I wouldn't want to have sex with a 280 lb woman, but I wouldn't want someone fired from their job for being 280lbs or for having a 280lb wife. That's the difference between preference and bigotry. Learn it. Further, you can say that anybody's religion or politics or philosophy is dumb. But you if you go further and don't allow Catholics or Liberals into your place of business, you're a bigot. Plain and simple.

Saying he wouldn't want them on the team doesn't cross the line. Saying the CAN'T be on the team does. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing, and so are the context of peoples words. Someone saying they don't WANT black people eating in their establishment is the same as someone saying black people CAN'T eat in their establishment.

Thanks for playing.

Brock · 01-30-2013, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

Saying he wouldn't want them on the team doesn't cross the line. Saying the CAN'T be on the team does. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing, and so are the context of peoples words. Someone saying they don't WANT black people eating in their establishment is the same as someone saying black people CAN'T eat in their establishment.

Thanks for playing.

Quote:

No, we don’t got no gay people on the team, they gotta get up out of here if they do.

.

mcan · 01-30-2013, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

Someone saying they don't WANT black people eating in their establishment is the same as someone saying black people CAN'T eat in their establishment.

Thanks for playing.

I assume you meant ISN'T the same.... Well that's good news. Apparently now that the civil rights act has passed there are no more bigots. As soon as the law made them take down their 'no blacks allowed signs' they ceased being bigots. All those klan members like david duke espousing all that hate on antional tv, nope they arent bigots at all because after all they didnt have the legal power to actually keep blacks and whites from getting married. That was just their non bigoted preferences. Whew. Thanks for schooling me.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-30-2013, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

And maybe muslims should quit blowing shit up and killing people in the name of Allah? Stereotypes exist for a reason.

And maybe Christians shouldn't have murdered 20 million Native Americans because they were "godless barbarians".

stevieray · 01-30-2013, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

And maybe Christians shouldn't have murdered 20 million Native Americans because they were "godless barbarians".

they were murdering each other before the colonists arrived...and some hooked up with said colonists to kill other tribes.

besides, that doesn't invalidate terrorists acts committed by Muslims, just like yelling allah akbar before going on a shooting rampage at Ft Hood doesn't constitute workplace violence.

ThaVirus · 01-30-2013, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray

they were murdering each other before the colonists arrived...and some hooked up with said colonists to kill other tribes.

besides, that doesn't invalidate terrorists acts committed by Muslims, just like yelling allah akbar before going on a shooting rampage at Ft Hood doesn't constitute workplace violence.

Yes.

Good thing we wiped them all out. They were already doing it before we got here!

stevieray · 01-30-2013, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Yes.

Good thing we wiped them all out. They were already doing it before we got here!

I think it's funny when people try to apply todays standards to life over two centuries ago.

Messier · 01-31-2013, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray

I think it's funny when people try to apply todays standards to life over two centuries ago.

Me too. It'd be like trying to take passages out of a book written about people and events that happened over 2000 years ago, and somehow make them applicable to today's world.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-30-2013, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray

they were murdering each other before the colonists arrived...and some hooked up with said colonists to kill other tribes.

This is akin to claiming that the Japanese dynasties, the Chinese dynasties, the Russian Czars, the English, French, Spanish and Romans killed each other, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray

besides, that doesn't invalidate terrorists acts committed by Muslims, just like yelling allah akbar before going on a shooting rampage at Ft Hood doesn't constitute workplace violence.

I'm not sure how you can compare one lone nut to the US Federal Government.

stevieray · 01-30-2013, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'm not sure how you can compare one lone nut to the US Federal Government.

let's not pretend there weren't barbaric indian tribes.

I'm not sure how you can marginalize terrorists act committed in recent years by saying..'well, Christians in the 1700's did it too'

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-30-2013, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray

let's not pretend there weren't barbaric indian tribes.

I'm not sure how you can marginalize terrorists act committed in recent years by saying..'well, Christians in the 1700's did it too'

Of course, you're right.

It's really difficult to address with a broadstroke.

Hope you and the family are well!

stevieray · 01-30-2013, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Of course, you're right.

It's really difficult to address with a broadstroke.

Hope you and the family are well!

back atcha! ill be in touch.

mcan · 01-31-2013, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray

let's not pretend there weren't barbaric indian tribes.

I'm not sure how you can marginalize terrorists act committed in recent years by saying..'well, Christians in the 1700's did it too'

We really don't know how "Barbaric" those tribes were before we got here. It's likely that they were much less. There is some speculation that when Europeans showed up and brought their diseases with them, that the viruses spread inland faster than civilization did. So, many tribes in the middle of the country went from flourishing to almost completely decimated even BEFORE they ever saw a white person. This is not unlike European culture right after the first plague. Many of the people who survived the late 1300s... Well, they didn't become friendlier.