VFL-82-JP
Bleedin' Orange...
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2015
- Messages
- 19,668
- Likes
- 52,162
and there the similarities end. Players are civilians subject to civilian code bringing us back to the illegitimacy of assault.
In this monochrome world of yours, must a person be a service member to speak of how their son is used or misused by the government's military policy? Or how their tax dollar is spent or misspent within same? Should only criminals sit in judgment of themselves? Or police and military subject to only their own review?
Drop the piety. It's a diversionary tactic that doesn't defend a monochrome perspective. Collegiate sports are for many young men (and women) the last chance society will have to impress temperance upon them. Your condoning assault will land them in prison once outside the insular walls of team football...or the military.
Ah, heh, I'm the one seeing the world in "monochrome." I live very comfortably today in a world of zero tolerance for physical violence. I've been retired a while now, and absolutely understand your perspective.
But, see, you're having real trouble understanding mine. Ours. The world of the football player, or the soldier, the world where physicality is the norm, whether you're helping each other over a wall, or double-teaming a block, or knocking some sense into each other.
I have no problem seeing the world in all its glorious colors. You, sir, do seem to be having a bit of trouble with that.
And BTW, you seem not to know much about or understand the UCMJ, either. I assure you assault is just as much an offense in it as in the laws of our civil society. It's just a question of being smart about whether and to what extent they should be enforced ... in both worlds.
Jason, or Josh, or Curt, or whoever straightened Joc Bruce out, did nothing wrong, nothing a young leader shouldn't do.
Last edited: