Jamal Lewis article

[MWAVolfan]

When you say, "we as a society have to decide, 'no, you can't do that anymore,'" you're describing the Nanny State.

No thanks.

No. A nanny state equates to a government deciding FOR YOU that you can't do something. That's not what I want. What I am advocating is for us as a society(the people) to decide it's no longer acceptable for us to put up with an activity when there is a clearly high likelihood of detrimental results.

We dont let people have access to most drugs without a doctors prescription because it's clearly dangerous to them to have those things on their own. In most places its illegal to commit suicide even if the offender is dead and it doesn't matter it's still against the law because it's clearly detrimental to your health.

There are laws that protect you from yourself and not just protecting others from you. You can call that a nanny state if you want but we do it every day.

But if we decided that football in it's current form was unacceptable and we were going to withhold our dollars from the NFL and college programs until something changes that protected players better then this is the will of the people not the will of the government. Which is not a nanny state.

 

[Mccage]

There is a really big difference between restricting a person's activities for the well-being of society (example: you aren't allowed to build a nuclear weapon and set it off in your neighborhood), and denying freedoms to protect a person from himself.

...

Cigarettes are dangerous. Sports parachuting is dangerous. Working in a mine is dangerous. So is being a fireman or policeman. Or deep sea fisherman. Or lumberjack. Or roughneck. Or a soldier.

Football is dangerous. Soccer is, too (that sport has its own share of concussions and CTE). And boxing. diving with sharks. High-tension lineman is a dangerous profession.

It's dangerous to climb a ladder if you're over 60 years of age, because of decreased sense of balance. Dangerous to leave a pot simmering on a gas stove while you go to the restroom or catch the rest of a TV show in the living room.

Skiing and snowmobiling in avalanche risk areas are dangerous. Mountain climbing is, too. Free soloing (ever see Alex Honnold climb?) is hugely risky.

...

So what's the difference between all those activities and building a nuke in your garage? Answer: everyone involved in all those other activities are knowingly sharing in the risks. There are no innocent, unknowing or unwilling participants.

Are you going to take away all those freedoms, to protect people from themselves? Really?

And if not all, who gets to decide which? You? Me?

Life is wonderful. It is awesome. But it is not sacrosanct. You can't wrap everyone around you in bubble wrap and tell them to sit in a bomb shelter for the rest of their lives. That is life without freedom for the sake of safety. It is the extreme example that proves that freedom is actually more valuable than simply staying alive.

People have the freedom to take risks.

That's true in their professions, and it's true in their pastimes.

When you say, "we as a society have to decide, 'no, you can't do that anymore,'" you're describing the Nanny State.

No thanks.

Bout sums it up, No one ever said freedom was going to be easy!

 

[VFL-82-JP]

No. A nanny state equates to a government deciding FOR YOU that you can't do something. That's not what I want. What I am advocating is for us as a society(the people) to decide it's no longer acceptable for us to put up with an activity when there is a clearly high likelihood of detrimental results.

You say nanny state = government deciding for you that you can't do something. And you say that you are opposed to that.

Then you say that you advocate society (the people) deciding that certain activities are unacceptable.

And you don't see how those are the same thing.

1. In a democracy, "government" is nothing more or less than society organizing itself. Government IS society (the people), organized for action.

2. "Deciding that certain activities are unacceptable" at the societal level is, precisely, telling people they can't do certain things.

So when you say you are in favor of "society deciding that certain activities are unacceptable," you precisely mean, "government telling you that you can't do things."

You're arguing both for and against the same thing. Whether you realize it or not.

 

[MWAVolfan]

You say nanny state = government deciding for you that you can't do something. And you say that you are opposed to that.

Then you say that you advocate society (the people) deciding that certain activities are unacceptable.

And you don't see how those are the same thing.

1. In a democracy, "government" is nothing more or less than society organizing itself. Government IS society (the people), organized for action.

2. "Deciding that certain activities are unacceptable" at the societal level is, precisely, telling people they can't do certain things.

So when you say you are in favor of "society deciding that certain activities are unacceptable," you precisely mean, "government telling you that you can't do things."

You're arguing both for and against the same thing. Whether you realize it or not.

No, a democracy is 51% of the people telling 49% of the people that they can't do something. Then there is political shift and all the sudden the 49% becomes the 51% and everything changes. THAT is government in a democracy.

What I am saying is that 99% of the people decide for themselves that we just aren't interested in this activity anymore and we freely choose to give it up without being told to do so. I say 99% because there will always be 1% crazy @ssholes that are willing to do anything...lol

 

[VFL-82-JP]

No, a democracy is 51% of the people telling 49% of the people that they can't do something. Then there is political shift and all the sudden the 49% becomes the 51% and everything changes. THAT is government in a democracy.

What I am saying is that 99% of the people decide for themselves that we just aren't interested in this activity anymore and we freely choose to give it up without being told to do so. I say 99% because there will always be 1% crazy @ssholes that are willing to do anything...lol

You have a simplistic view of democracy, but let's leave that aside. Topic for another day, probably in a different forum.

Ok, so now you are advocating that football should spontaneously die from a mass collective lack of interest.

Heh. Okay. Good luck with that.

-- most popular spectator sport in the US
-- wildly popular participatory sport as well, and will remain so as long as it offers a path to wealth and fame

Getting 99% of people to agree that Justin Bieber is a twerp is impossible. Getting 99% of people to agree on anything is impossible. And you think that 99% of Americans are each going to spontaneously and independently decide for themselves to stop watching football.

Okay.


p.s. Remember, it was you who used the language, "no you can't do that any more" (post #70, last paragraph, first sentence). That is a far different tone than, "we'll just all 99% of us ignore it, and it will go away." So you're changing your tune while we discuss the subject. But either way, your argument is not sound.

 

[TJ1985]

America is the greatest country in the world. We are so blessed. Every American has the right to pursue happiness. We actually have so much freedom that many express their freedom by attempting to restrict the freedom of others, which if successful, would result in an America that isn't very free at all.

I think people have the right to make their own choices as long as those decisions don't affect other unwilling, ignorant participants.

 

[photovol]

Depressing story, really makes you think about the injuries that come with a competitive contact sport like football, doesn't it?opcorn:

 

[bbeacham]

I would take a half dozen Jamal Lewis-type running backs in a heartbeat. I believe that whenever Coach Pruitt is talking about "power-football", he is thinking about backs like Jamal Lewis, Derrick Henry, Travis Henry,who had no problem running right over you. We haven't had what I would consider "power" backs in a long time. If Juann Jennings gained about 45 pounds and got his bench press up to 500 pounds and his squat up to 700 pounds; he would become the ideal big back.

 

[TJ1985]

I would take a half dozen Jamal Lewis-type running backs in a heartbeat. I believe that whenever Coach Pruitt is talking about "power-football", he is thinking about backs like Jamal Lewis, Derrick Henry, Travis Henry,who had no problem running right over you. We haven't had what I would consider "power" backs in a long time. If Juann Jennings gained about 45 pounds and got his bench press up to 500 pounds and his squat up to 700 pounds; he would become the ideal big back.

I was born in 85, and I think Lewis is the most dominant back of my lifetime. Keep in mind, I don't remember watching Webb play. I keep telling myself I need to pull him up on YouTube. Anyhow, watching Lewis run through and around defenders was a thing of beauty.

 

[vol66]

It’s apples and oranges.

Whether one supports what they are doing or not, Starbucks is addressing an issue(s) stemming from events that took place at Starbucks chains. And Starbucks can handle that any way they see fit that they think best helps their business moving forward.

The Colin Kaepernick situation was regarding a national issue that had nothing to do with the NFL. And now the NFL is being sucked into a political issue that they were not involved in in any way. Worse, they are being brow beaten for making a decision that they believe is in their best business interest moving forward over an issue they had nothing to do with. And that proves my point even more about CTE because that is an NFL issue and these guys don’t care a lick

I disagree.

 

[MWAVolfan]

You have a simplistic view of democracy, but let's leave that aside. Topic for another day, probably in a different forum.

Ok, so now you are advocating that football should spontaneously die from a mass collective lack of interest.

Heh. Okay. Good luck with that.

-- most popular spectator sport in the US
-- wildly popular participatory sport as well, and will remain so as long as it offers a path to wealth and fame

Getting 99% of people to agree that Justin Bieber is a twerp is impossible. Getting 99% of people to agree on anything is impossible. And you think that 99% of Americans are each going to spontaneously and independently decide for themselves to stop watching football.

Okay.


p.s. Remember, it was you who used the language, "no you can't do that any more" (post #70, last paragraph, first sentence). That is a far different tone than, "we'll just all 99% of us ignore it, and it will go away." So you're changing your tune while we discuss the subject. But either way, your argument is not sound.

My view of democracy is actually incredibly accurate based on today's politically polarized climate. And back in my original post I specifically said I didn't think this was going to be solved in the next 20 years and I used the example of how cigarets which clearly should be banned are still legal. So I'm saying the same thing now that I said then you just read it wrong.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

My view of democracy is actually incredibly accurate based on today's politically polarized climate. And back in my original post I specifically said I didn't think this was going to be solved in the next 20 years and I used the example of how cigarets which clearly should be banned are still legal. So I'm saying the same thing now that I said then you just read it wrong.

If you're waiting for 99% of Americans to spontaneously and independently stop watching football, you're going to wait a hell of a lot longer than 20 years.

Your great-great-grandchildren will still be holding their breath on your behalf, I think.

 

[Burger]

My view of democracy is actually incredibly accurate based on today's politically polarized climate. And back in my original post I specifically said I didn't think this was going to be solved in the next 20 years and I used the example of how cigarets which clearly should be banned are still legal. So I'm saying the same thing now that I said then you just read it wrong.

Why should we save people from themselves? As long as their not infringing on freedom of others, I don't see the issue.

 

[vol66]

Why should we save people from themselves? As long as their not infringing on freedom of others, I don't see the issue.

How, exactly, is a football player kneeling for the anthem, in silent, peaceful protest, infringing on the freedom of others?

 

[TJ1985]

How, exactly, is a football player kneeling for the anthem, in silent, peaceful protest, infringing on the freedom of others?

It isn't.

Every action has a consequence, though. And, because NFL leadership didn't like the results its employees' actions were causing, a new company policy was instituted. Those same players have the right to protest however they desire on their own time, but when they (we) clock in, its time to adhere to company policy.

 

[vol66]

It isn't.

Every action has a consequence, though. And, because NFL leadership didn't like the results its employees' actions were causing, a new company policy was instituted. Those same players have the right to protest however they desire on their own time, but when they (we) clock in, its time to adhere to company policy.

I suspect the new "policy" will be challenged in a myriad of ways, and rightfully so.

 

[TJ1985]

I suspect the new "policy" will be challenged in a myriad of ways, and rightfully so.

I'd say you're right.

 

[Burger]

I suspect the new "policy" will be challenged in a myriad of ways, and rightfully so.

I can't protest at work either.

 

[99gator]

I can't protest at work either.

I said earlier that I personally didn’t care. And I don’t.

The main reason I don’t care is what bothers me the most which nobody speaks to and is typical of the age in which we live.

It’s not a protest. It’s a useless gesture. It’s literally the least anyone can do. I am supposed to believe these are committed people rallying around a cause and this is what they come up with?

Go ahead. Wear a ribbon. Hashtag something. Post it on Facebook. Send one of those chain emails telling you to send it to 10 other people. “Raise consciousness”. Take a knee for 2 minutes and anger some people who might have otherwise rallied to your cause.

And then, literally do nothing else. Don’t bother actually putting in any hard work to effect change. If you are kaepernick, don’t even bother to vote. Do nothing of substance to advance the cause you supposedly care about.

I find it all humorous and sad. And that sums up the CTE thing for me too. Are people not watching football? Are people no longer playing football? Are the players themselves demanding anything in labor negotiations? So, where’s the action behind all the brouhaha.

Bill Maher summed up the mindset of a lot of people (regarding a different issue but it applies to a lot of things)....”what can people who pretend to care, pretend to do”

And that’s what a lot of this is to me.

 

[volbeast33]

I suspect the new "policy" will be challenged in a myriad of ways, and rightfully so.

Why? All it does is hurt the game and theirselves

 

[Burger]

I said earlier that I personally didn’t care. And I don’t.

The main reason I don’t care is what bothers me the most which nobody speaks to and is typical of the age in which we live.

It’s not a protest. It’s a useless gesture. It’s literally the least anyone can do. I am supposed to believe these are committed people rallying around a cause and this is what they come up with?

Go ahead. Wear a ribbon. Hashtag something. Post it on Facebook. Send one of those chain emails telling you to send it to 10 other people. “Raise consciousness”. Take a knee for 2 minutes and anger some people who might have otherwise rallied to your cause.

And then, literally do nothing else. Don’t bother actually putting in any hard work to effect change. If you are kaepernick, don’t even bother to vote. Do nothing of substance to advance the cause you supposedly care about.

I find it all humorous and sad. And that sums up the CTE thing for me too. Are people not watching football? Are people no longer playing football? Are the players themselves demanding anything in labor negotiations? So, where’s the action behind all the brouhaha.

Bill Maher summed up the mindset of a lot of people (regarding a different issue but it applies to a lot of things)....”what can people who pretend to care, pretend to do”

And that’s what a lot of this is to me.

Agreed.

 

[vol66]

And then, literally do nothing else. Don’t bother actually putting in any hard work to effect change. If you are kaepernick, don’t even bother to vote. Do nothing of substance to advance the cause you supposedly care about.

Nothing of substance?

The ostracized quarterback has been backing up his convictions with charitable acts, but that hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention as the protest wave he started last season by taking a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality in minority communities and systemic racism.

Colin Kaepernick: Charitable acts don't get attention of protests


He put his money where his mouth was and got folks like Kevin Durant, Serena Williams, Snoop, Alicia Keys and others to match...


Here are the final 10 organizations Colin Kaepernick donated to for his $1 million pledge - SBNation.com

Kevin Livingston was driving home with his daughter when he received a random call one Saturday morning last April: Colin Kaepernick has something for you. How far away are you?

Livingston runs a charity, 100 Suits for 100 Men, that provides business attire for job seekers who have recently been released from jail or suffered hardship, and after he dropped off his daughter, he raced to the Queens parole office, where he keeps a desk. Kaepernick was waiting for him in his SUV, where he’d been sitting for almost an hour. The QB stepped out wearing lime-green sneakers and a black T-shirt emblazoned with a panther, lugging two overstuffed cardboard boxes toward a glass door marked STAFF ONLY. He opened a box, pulled out a gray, custom-made three-piece suit, draped a striped tie over the jacket and posed for a few cellphone pics, flashing a smile. One of those photos became an Instagram post, and that post went viral.

Colin Kaepernick Charity: Where QB donates his money | SI.com


I guess that's nothing which is why...

Sports Illustrated Muhammad Ali Legacy Award

GQ's Citizen of the Year

Eason Monroe Courageous Advocate Award

Len Ashmont Award

Amnesty International Ambassador of Conscience Award

The award is Amnesty International's highest honor, according to its website. Past winners include Nelson Mandela, Malala Yousafzai, U2, Alicia Keys and Ai Weiwei. Kaepernick was presented with the award at a ceremony in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Seems to me like he's gone about his business quietly, other than his initial protest, which was quiet too...just like you want him to or so it seems.

 

[Doberman]

If one of my employees was taking a 20% bite out of my profit margin by taking a knee, they’d be on their feet, or out on their ear.

Not sure why this debate rages on.

Simple stuff.

Money talks, and ......you know the rest.

 

[vol66]

I can't protest at work either.

I don't know where you work of course.


Professional Athletes have a platform. In this particular case, for this particular cause, one might argue that it's the perfect platform.

All white owners, a stadium vastly filled with white people looking down at a field where 70% of the participants are African American...and some of those guys would like to start a conversation about the injustice they see and have probably experienced themselves.

Maybe for some, it did start a conversation. Maybe for others, it's offensive. We know what POTUS thinks. Shut up, Stand Up, Play Football.

 

[TJ1985]

I don't know where you work of course.


Professional Athletes have a platform. In this particular case, for this particular cause, one might argue that it's the perfect platform.

All white owners, a stadium vastly filled with white people looking down at a field where 70% of the participants are African American...and some of those guys would like to start a conversation about the injustice they see and have probably experienced themselves.

Maybe for some, it did start a conversation. Maybe for others, it's offensive. We know what POTUS thinks. Shut up, Stand Up, Play Football.

Lol... so as long as the employee thinks their platform is perfect they should be able to use it to protest? That's a slippery slope. I'm a teacher with a great platform... see where I'm going with this?

Another thing, you have a problem that white owners, who pay millions of dollars to athletes of different races, want to do their best to maximize their profits? The fact that you clarified the owners as white leads me to believe you'd feel differently if they were black. So, a rich black man is different than a rich white man?

In a previous post you mentioned CK's charitable work, which is great. You ever think he brought some heat on himself with clothing choices he made, which could be deemed as peaceful protest, where he glorified a ruthless dictator and presented police officers as pigs?

I think every American has the 1st amendment right to speak and protest freely. Maybe not on company time, though. And, they should be prepared to experience backlash when they don't show respect to the country which gave them the freedom to do so and when they disrespect those that put their lives on the line to protect the freedom of others.

Edit: Your second paragraph. You have a problem with whitey?