Wonder if they’re practicing Philly Special 

1 hour ago, Michaels maniacs said:

But yet they give a statue to a thug 

And pointed a gun at pregnant woman as he robbed her 

A druggie and thief

What a ****** up country we live in and it's gonna get worse

Nick Foles didn't rob anyone unless Tom Brady identifies as a pregnant lady.  

6 minutes ago, downundermike said:

rtk HATING female announcers, and then giving Gruden a pass for hate speech against women, POC and those who live an alternative lifestyle. 

Says a lot.

 

Not as much as your disdain for sexual assault victims who must all be scheming liars because they accused a QB you like.  You're bottom of the barrel low character. 

14 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Nor should we, 1st amendment, "separation of church and state."

This was originally driven by the Baptists not wanting to finance the "state Church" (Anglicans, the Church of England, which became Episcopalians after the Revolution). And the Founding Fathers' knowledge of the European wars of religion, which for them wasn't the distant past. Keeping government out of religion allowed people to worship as they pleased.

In a secular society composed of people with different religions (including atheists, agnostics, Deists, Wiccans, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, 100 Protestant sects) and beliefs, enforcing one religion's moral code is a nonstarter (Christian sharia is no different than Islamic sharia). 

It is one thing for you to live by that code (though certain limits, we don't allow followers of Baal to conduct child sacrifice), quite another to impose it upon others who don't share your beliefs.

Though I am always amused by Christians who cherry pick the Old Testament for a prohibition against homosexuality. Seems their God is far more concerned with sexual predilections (even though every mammal engages in homosexual behavior) than social justice (helping the poor is a major theme of both the Old and New Testament, and usually the "sin" for which God punishes Israel).

Agree with everything except, every mammal engages in homosexual behavior part. in the sense that when another animal engages sexually with a same sex of it's species it's different than when a human does.

I mean if we want to justify homosexuality because mammals engage in sex with the same sex of their species where do our justifications stop???. Other mammals also kill and eat other mammals of their same species should we justify murder and cannibalism? Mammals will often attempt to copulate with species other than their own, should we use that to justify beastiality???

I think comparing the behaviours of wild animals to justify our own is a slippery slope.

And while there are comparisons and similarities in behavior humans are differentiated by the rest of the animal kingdom in that we Inherently have a sense of right and wrong or moral and immoral.

Now whether what one considers what is right or wrong or moral or immoral is up to each person and it's up to society to collectively agree on what right or wrong morally.

We all agree murder is morally wrong as for homosexuality the consensus is obviously split, and as stated before I don't think using comparisons or examples from other species is a logical way to form a societal consensus.

 

 

1 hour ago, Mike31mt said:

IMO Sirianni--aside from one game, has put Hurts in a position to succeed.  His scheme clearly works, he knows what hes doing.

Its the other part of being a HC that he has to prove.  Critical downs/situations, managing a team over the ups/downs of a season, personnel decisions, etc.

 

If you had to choose to ride or die with one, say for the next 5 years, do you take Sirianni+Unknown QB or Hurts+Unknown HC?

To me its obvious, give me Sirianni

I'll take Sirianni.  But, if we can't get a new GM, it might all just be academic.

1 minute ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

You're bottom of the barrel low character. 

That is comedy coming from you defending a guy who used hate speech against women, minorities and alternative lifestyle folks.

Just now, downundermike said:

That is comedy coming from you defending a guy who used hate speech against women, minorities and alternative lifestyle folks.

 

Yeah, so many real victims to Gruden talking in private to someone 10 years ago.  Not like those fake Watson sexual assault victims, those scheming liars who deserved what they had coming to them if 2 booked a follow up appointment.  

2 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Actually that isn’t what I asked but I can understand you seeing it that way, which is fine.

I certainly wasn’t trying to portray all of the New Testament but rather referencing something from it that I admire (forgiveness and inclusion) and how I thought they might apply as to how we view Gruden’s transgressions (forgiveness) and the derogatory terminology he used (a wrong that he might have learned from)and how some slid to deteriorating society because of inclusion and acceptance in a comic book, which seemed like a real stretch to me.   No offense meant as I thought I put those teachings I referenced in a positive light. 
 

I'm not offended old friend just trying to explain that, while Jesus did indeed hang around with sinners and include them in things, after they hung out with him they changed, much like I have I still sin but I don't pretend that it isn't sin and I ask to be forgiven of it. There are many things that are "accepted" now days that translate to sin. People are either unaware or don't care and that's where the danger lays.

The Bible predicts all of that concerning the "last days" 

It's about a choice and that's the last I will say other than talking about it via pms if you want.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Yeah, so many real victims to Gruden talking in private to someone 10 years ago.  Not like those fake Watson sexual assault victims, those scheming liars who deserved what they had coming to them if 2 booked a follow up appointment.  

It was not 10 years ago.  It was from 2011 through 2018.  You are dense.

6 minutes ago, DireWolf said:

Define hate speech. 

noun

noun: hate speech

1. abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

   "we don't tolerate any form of hate speech"

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

It was not 10 years ago.  It was from 2011 through 2018.  You are dense.

 

2011 was when? 

4 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

2011 was when? 

When the first email was sent, but the history extends into 2018.

I was not aware there was a statute of limitations on hate speech against women, POC and others.

You can plug in really any player lol

8 minutes ago, downundermike said:

When the first email was sent, but the history extends into 2018.

I was not aware there was a statute of limitations on hate speech against women, POC and others.

 

Oh no, he said things in private that don't align with your ideology.  No one should be allowed to ever think or say things that someone could get offended by in this culuture where everyone gets offended by everything. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Utebird said:

noun

noun: hate speech

1. abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

   "we don't tolerate any form of hate speech"

Again, not defending Gruden but I'm going to argue that he wasn't using hate speech.  I don't think he was showing prejudice against gays.  He used the term in a derogatory way.  Hate speech would be him out there claiming that gays are bad or some other message.  I think hate speech is getting watered down much like racism and phobias now.  It's used to describe any use of a word rather than what true hate speech is.

Derogatory 

adjective

1. showing a critical or disrespectful attitude.

 

From what I gather, the point Gruden was trying to make was that it was BS for Goodell to force Jeff Fisher and the Rams to take Michael Sam, a gay player, or in Grudens terms a Q.  Again, imagine if Howie drafted Michael Sam and we later found out that Goodell was forcing his hand to get a openly gay player in the league.  I think Eagles fans would lose their minds. 

 

 

This is just how I perceive it.  We all view things different.  

 

26 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Agree with everything except, every mammal engages in homosexual behavior part. in the sense that when another animal engages sexually with a same sex of it's species it's different than when a human does.

I mean if we want to justify homosexuality because mammals engage in sex with the same sex of their species where do our justifications stop???. Other mammals also kill and eat other mammals of their same species should we justify murder and cannibalism? Mammals will often attempt to copulate with species other than their own, should we use that to justify beastiality???

I think comparing the behaviours of wild animals to justify our own is a slippery slope.

And while there are comparisons and similarities in behavior humans are differentiated by the rest of the animal kingdom in that we Inherently have a sense of right and wrong or moral and immoral.

Now whether what one considers what is right or wrong or moral or immoral is up to each person and it's up to society to collectively agree on what right or wrong morally.

We all agree murder is morally wrong as for homosexuality the consensus is obviously split, and as stated before I don't think using comparisons or examples from other species is a logical way to form a societal consensus.

You're confusing moral codes with civil codes.

Law in a multi-cultural diverse society has to be limited to prohibiting those activities which present a threat to others or society as a whole. A diverse society can't agree on what's "moral" almost by definition, since religions differ in what they consider moral, and tens of millions of Americans reject organized religion. Just because some people are offended by behavior doesn't mean it should be illegal, there needs to be a rationale that generates general acceptance.

Unfortunately, we confuse law with manners, that is, the power of the state shouldn't be used to suppress offensive but not dangerous behavior. Which is why we have a Bill of Rights, to constrain the government (the Founder Fathers feared the "mob," for good reason as January 6 showed, but also because the majority can suppress minorities who lack legal protections). So while I might be offended by idiots marching with torches shouting "Jews will not replace us," that behavior is protected by the 1st amendment. If you're offended by homosexuality, you're free to object to it, you just can't discriminate against homosexuals, destroying their livelihoods and otherwise harm them because you consider them sinful.

The government has no business telling people which sexual acts are acceptable (though it has a responsibility to protect minors who can't give active consent). Oral sex between heterosexuals was a crime in many states - but that's the kind of stupid legislation that creates contempt for the law. So was marriage between whites and nonwhites. Limited government isn't "no government," but government constrained by both the Constitution and common sense.

What Gruden did was bad manners, he is being punished because a corporation (the NFL) that depends on selling its product to a diverse audience is within its rights to demand that its employees avoid behavior that can offend and alienate its workers (the players) and its customers. But there is nothing illegal about it, just stupid, given his public position as the face of a NFL team (or as an announcer for NFL games).

What Watson did might be criminal behavior, coercing sex is a totally different matter, it's not about morality but about force. Even there, the law can't police every sexual encounter, rather it must focus on egregious behaviors, but at some point bad behavior is bad manners, not assault - but drawing that line will always be difficult - the boundaries of the law are defined by difficult cases.

If Americans had better manners, on both the Left and Right, a lot of current controversy would dissipate. "Rights" rhetoric is nonsense, the only rights we have are those created by law, both the Federal and State Constitutions and the court's interpretations of said documents. When we stop declaring we have absolute rights, and start respecting each other's differences and learn toleration, we'll have a much more livable society. You may have the right to conduct a Gay Parade in Peoria, but maybe it should be a bit more restrained than in SF. Maybe we shouldn't take offense so easily, but also employ a little empathy and avoid giving offense. Maybe politicians should avoid "Dog Whistles," and we should punish those who employ them.

So be courteous to your neighbors, pick up after your dog, don't litter, try a little politeness, don't denigrate others, and restrain yourself on message boards. 😝

 

4 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

You can plug in really any player lol

 

3 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Again, not defending Gruden but I'm going to argue that he wasn't using hate speech.  I don't think he was showing prejudice against gays.  He used the term in a derogatory way.  Hate speech would be him out there claiming that gays are bad or some other message.  I think hate speech is getting watered down much like racism and phobias now.  It's used to describe any use of a word rather than what true hate speech is.

Derogatory 

adjective

1. showing a critical or disrespectful attitude.

 

From what I gather, the point Gruden was trying to make was that it was BS for Goodell to force Jeff Fisher and the Rams to take Michael Sam, a gay player, or in Grudens terms a Q.  Again, imagine if Howie drafted Michael Sam and we later found out that Goodell was forcing his hand to get a openly gay player in the league.  I think Eagles fans would lose their minds. 

 

 

This is just how I perceive it.  We all view things different.  

 

 I wasn't making a statement either way 

Dire wolf asked for definition of hate speech so I copied pasted and posted the dictionary definition of hate speech.

But yeah I tend to agree with what you've said above 

Lol Daniel Jeremiah on cowherd just talked about the colts potentially sitting wentz at the end of the year even if he’s playing well so they don’t lose the first round pick. And went back to how people got upset at the eagles for tanking and how people would react if they essentially did that if wentz was playing good 

10 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Oh no, he said things in private that don't align with your ideology.  No one should be allowed to ever think or say things that someone could get offended by in this culuture where everyone gets offended by everything. 

 

 

Gruden is fully free and "allowed" to say whatever he wants. Literally nobody is stopping him from doing so. But words and thoughts have consequences for public figures. How do you not understand this? 

5 minutes ago, Utebird said:

 I wasn't making a statement either way 

Dire wolf asked for definition of hate speech so I copied pasted and posted the dictionary definition of hate speech.

But yeah I tend to agree with what you've said above 

My fault.

Just now, bpac55 said:

My fault.

No worries

3 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Lol Daniel Jeremiah on cowherd just talked about the colts potentially sitting wentz at the end of the year even if he’s playing well so they don’t lose the first round pick. And went back to how people got upset at the eagles for tanking and how people would react if they essentially did that if wentz was playing good 

Given the Titans are the only competition, and they're unlikely to run away with the division, the Colts will be competing for at least 13 games (13th game at Houston).

They have 7 winnable games and Tennesse at home. So 8-9 or 9-8 could win the division.

Imagine if they're 2 games behind, and they sit him for the last 5, 4 of which are winnable?

 

11 minutes ago, austinfan said:

You're confusing moral codes with civil codes.

Law in a multi-cultural diverse society has to be limited to prohibiting those activities which present a threat to others or society as a whole. A diverse society can't agree on what's "moral" almost by definition, since religions differ in what they consider moral, and tens of millions of Americans reject organized religion. Just because some people are offended by behavior doesn't mean it should be illegal, there needs to be a rationale that generates general acceptance.

Unfortunately, we confuse law with manners, that is, the power of the state shouldn't be used to suppress offensive but not dangerous behavior. Which is why we have a Bill of Rights, to constrain the government (the Founder Fathers feared the "mob," for good reason as January 6 showed, but also because the majority can suppress minorities who lack legal protections). So while I might be offended by idiots marching with torches shouting "Jews will not replace us," that behavior is protected by the 1st amendment. If you're offended by homosexuality, you're free to object to it, you just can't discriminate against homosexuals, destroying their livelihoods and otherwise harm them because you consider them sinful.

The government has no business telling people which sexual acts are acceptable (though it has a responsibility to protect minors who can't give active consent). Oral sex between heterosexuals was a crime in many states - but that's the kind of stupid legislation that creates contempt for the law. So was marriage between whites and nonwhites. Limited government isn't "no government," but government constrained by both the Constitution and common sense.

What Gruden did was bad manners, he is being punished because a corporation (the NFL) that depends on selling its product to a diverse audience is within its rights to demand that its employees avoid behavior that can offend and alienate its workers (the players) and its customers. But there is nothing illegal about it, just stupid, given his public position as the face of a NFL team (or as an announcer for NFL games).

What Watson did might be criminal behavior, coercing sex is a totally different matter, it's not about morality but about force. Even there, the law can't police every sexual encounter, rather it must focus on egregious behaviors, but at some point bad behavior is bad manners, not assault - but drawing that line will always be difficult - the boundaries of the law are defined by difficult cases.

If Americans had better manners, on both the Left and Right, a lot of current controversy would dissipate. "Rights" rhetoric is nonsense, the only rights we have are those created by law, both the Federal and State Constitutions and the court's interpretations of said documents. When we stop declaring we have absolute rights, and start respecting each other's differences and learn toleration, we'll have a much more livable society. You may have the right to conduct a Gay Parade in Peoria, but maybe it should be a bit more restrained than in SF. Maybe we shouldn't take offense so easily, but also employ a little empathy and avoid giving offense. Maybe politicians should avoid "Dog Whistles," and we should punish those who employ them.

So be courteous to your neighbors, pick up after your dog, don't litter, try a little politeness, don't denigrate others, and restrain yourself on message boards. 😝

 

Totally wholly agree with everything above.

Just didn't agree with the comparisons of other species being used to justify human behavior, as stated I think it creates a slippery slope.