Eagles not going to whitehouse

[pgt_rob]

1 hour ago, dynasty13 said:

 

No moral value? See, this is where the conversation heads south. 

 

Peaceful marches and protests by women with signs that contain language no more vile than that used by the man being protested against to stand up for something they believe it is not the sign of a lack of morality and integrity. 

 

But regardless, and as Buck mentioned above, I am fairly certain that moral character is EXACTLY what the refusal of going to the White House was based on.

 

Yes, most have no moral value. And it goes both ways honestly. It's true. ;)

 

The ones who have issues with the players kneeling are either not watching the NFL or they turn on the game well after the beginning. Nobody is counter protesting with signs showing their lack or morality that I know of at least. 

 

 

[pgt_rob]

1 hour ago, Nadine said:

You don't see both sides stating their opinion?

 

Yes. I do. Mods are doing a good job at letting anyone who wants to jump in say their peace. Thank you.

[Cynjin]

31 minutes ago, Bshultz said:

 

African Americans are shot and killed by police at a rate 2.5 times higher than white people. 

https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-racism

 

Drug usage is the same among both white and african american citizens, yet african americans are detained and arrested at 4x the rate.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/29/16936908/marijuana-legalization-racial-disparities-arrests

 

African American sentences are twenty percent longer than whites for the same crime.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/black-men-sentenced-time-white-men-crime-study/story?id=51203491

 

Quote from an opinion piece in 2016.

 

"But policing should be measured against crime rates, not population percentages, because law enforcement today is data-driven. Officers are deployed to where people are most being victimized, and that is primarily in minority neighborhoods."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/18/police-shootings-and-race/?utm_term=.f5b41ff3d9ce

[DougDew]

53 minutes ago, Bshultz said:

 

African Americans are shot and killed by police at a rate 2.5 times higher than white people. 

https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-racism

 

Drug usage is the same among both white and african american citizens, yet african americans are detained and arrested at 4x the rate.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/29/16936908/marijuana-legalization-racial-disparities-arrests

 

African American sentences are twenty percent longer than whites for the same crime.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/black-men-sentenced-time-white-men-crime-study/story?id=51203491

That's fine.  I'm not going to debate findings, but I will point out somethings about how you phrased each statement. First of all, I don't know how a fairly narrow issue of inappropriate police conduct mean the entire "country permits" oppression.  Seems like a wildly extreme extrapolation. 

 

Secondly, keep in mind that police departments are controlled by municipalities, not a national policy or police force.  Exactly what Federal official is going to do something about it?  All of the urban cities have predominantly AA populations, and AA mayors. 

 

"AA are shot and killed by police at a rate 2.5 times higher than white people". 

 

Does that mean they challenge the authority of the police at the same rate as WP and are shot more often, or that they challenge police with significantly more frequency than WP and are therefore shot more often?  And, if so, does that increased challenge, lead to police mistakenly shooting AA more.  What I would want to see is any sort of cultural messages delivered to the respective communities that either encourages or discourages cooperation with police.  I think the police, both WP an AA cops, will tell you that AA community tends to not cooperate with police at a much much higher rate than WP community.  I assume that leads to direct challenges.  Was the Ferguson youth actually moving away hands up don't shoot, or was that just an urban legend lie created and distributed by members of the community?  What's the level of community cooperation or confrontation?

 

"Drug usage is the same among both white and african american citizens, yet african americans are detained and arrested at 4x the rate".

 

First of all, how does anybody know what the illegal drug usage rate is?  Who has the means to report this accurately?  Does the user raise his hand to be counted?  Its probably safe to say that the overall crime rate within homogenous AA neighborhoods is probably higher than the crime rate in homogenous WP 'hoods, so more cops will catch more drug users in the neighborhoods that are patrolled more often.  

 

"African American sentences are twenty percent longer than whites for the same crime."

I don't have an answer, other than I don't think its fair to claim a country permits oppression of brown skinned people based upon how long people who break the law are sentenced.  I mean, they broke the law. 

 

 

 

[Jason_]

4 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

 

5. No political or religious discussions.

 

Taken directly from the "rules".

 

I find it interesting how some threads like this are allowed to continue and others are shut down rather quickly.

 

Hey here's another blurb from the site "rules"

 

Quote

If you have a problem with the rules or with moderation, PM (private message) a member of the mod team. Public discussion of site and forum moderation (including in the blogs or profiles) is against the rules.

 

4 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

Yes, they are.  I know this because actual soldiers have said they felt disrespected.

 

So the couple of actual soldiers you've spoken to speak for every soldier on the planet?  I think not.  There have been many, many reports of soldiers and vets that have no issue with the kneeling protests.

 

4 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

Then why was the last thread on essentially the same topic shut down?  It was as respectful as this one is and was on topic.

 

Perhaps because the thread was cleaned up and disrespectful posts were removed before it was locked.  Therefore when you look at it now, it looks like the entire discussion was civil and respectful when in truth it was not.  It's simply been cleaned up.

 

 

 

 

Oh and I wouldn't have gone to the white house either.  I have no issue whatsoever with the players who decided they didn't want to go.  it's their right to choose.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, CamMo said:

 

I read your comment multiple times, but I’m still not sure I fully grasp your message. Feel free to set me straight.

 

There is a division, but the division isn’t between white/black, woman/man. One of the (many!) divisions in the 60s was that there were those Americans who believed black people shouldn’t share the same public spaces as whites, and those that believed that was wrong - that separate was inherently unequal. I’m not black and I know which side of that “division” I stand on. It doesn’t offend me to see black men raise their fist for civil rights. It doesn’t offend me or make me feel like an oppressor to see black men kneel because black men and women are disproportionately targeted by police and the judicial system. Why would it? I understand their message and it’s one I, too, see as an issue. I think there is a discussion to be had. This thread is a perfect example of that.

 

It sounds like you don’t see inequality ie racism/sexism in our society today, and those that do are separating themselves needlessly? If that’s the case, we may be too far apart to have a meaningful discussion. But, I always love hearing another side.

 

Keeping this on topic.  What does the anthem and flag have to do with how society may or may not be?  Because society may or may not be a certain way, how is it that the flag represents that?

 

I said that the black power gesture in the 60s made sense.  It makes no sense today.  There is no segregation that exist in a systemic cultural way that can't be explained by simple freedom of association that people of all races exercise.   

 

To your question:

 

What I'm saying is that people who claim to see inequality in our society should explain to me why they see it when the laws of the land have prohibited it for decades.  

 

And before you cite statistics about income, crime, etc.  Does the inequality that exists in the race and gender statistics exist BECAUSE of race and gender,  IOW is it causal?, or are there other reasons for the inequality among the races and genders that nobody has bothered to try and explain?

 

One small data point.  Gender income inequality stats can be partially explained by the fact that females are the only ones who get pregnant and tend to remove themselves from the workforce, by choice, more often than males.  Thats a fact, don't shoot the messenger.  And when you compare stats for people who do similar jobs, tenure plays a part in overall compensation in a macro way.  So if a man has been doing a job for 25 years at a 2% increase every year, and a woman has been doing the exact same job for 20 years at a 2% raise every year, the man is going to be making more money at the present time.  Right?

 

Does that inequality have any social meaning?  Is it oppression?   

 

The onus is on you.  You would be the one who claims we need to change something about the country because of pervasive meaningful, correctable, inequality among races and genders.  You make that claim.  You need to come to the table equipped with the evidence supporting that claim instead of just jumping to the idea its an undeniable truth that requires me to prove my side.

 

[Reality Check]

3 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

There is one difference that you failed to mention. This is the first president that has ever made an issue of players' declining to show up for the White House celebration. Tim Thomas was not the only player who refused an invitation to the White House. Some Patriots have not gone to previous White House celebrations. There have been others that I cannot recall. But no President has called players out for it. This is the only President who has done so.

I explained this in an earlier response to someone who said, essentially, the same thing as you....

 

While there are many players who have chosen not to go to the WH, most of them cite "personal reasons".  Thomas & the Eagles players have both openly cited "political views" as a reason for not attending....regardless of who the sitting president is/was.  If you have other players who cited "political difference" for their reason for not attending a "WH Championship Celebration", please offer them up as they can trigger good discussion.  I do not remember any Patriot's players who cited "political differences/issues" for not attending....of course, some did not attend for this reason (I am sure), but they did not want to overshadow the event and/or their teammate's accomplishments by stealing the spotlight.

 

My original point was around the idea of how Tim Thomas was publically crucified (fos) for not attending by some and the Eagles' players decision is widely viewed differently than TT's. Why?

[Cynjin]

26 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Hey here's another blurb from the site "rules"

Public discussion of site and forum moderation (including in the blogs or profiles) is against the rules.
 

Ah, free speech at its best.  Not that the Mods have to adhere to those principles, however they seem to have indicated through their posts that they believe free speech should be allowed even in a non-governmental situation.

 

So the couple of actual soldiers you've spoken to speak for every soldier on the planet?  I think not.  There have been many, many reports of soldiers and vets that have no issue with the kneeling protests.

 

A couple, sorry far more than that.  I haven't taken a poll but I would guess that far more soldiers feel it is disrespectful than have no issue.

 

26 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Perhaps because the thread was cleaned up and disrespectful posts were removed before it was locked.  Therefore when you look at it now, it looks like the entire discussion was civil and respectful when in truth it was not.  It's simply been cleaned up.  

 

I doubt it.  This also misses the point that the threads were similar in tone.

 

26 minutes ago, J@son said:

Oh and I wouldn't have gone to the white house either.  I have no issue whatsoever with the players who decided they didn't want to go.  it's their right to choose.  

 

I don't care if they went or not either.  It's just that they missed an opportunity to try to talk to the president about the cause that they care so much about.

 

[Reality Check]

I think the old saying "perception IS reality" could easily be applied to this particular situation. Both sides.

[Jason_]

10 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

 

 

 

"free speech" has nothing to do with an internet forum. The right to free speech simply means that congress cannot pass laws that would prohibit your right to free speech. Private entities such as the NFL or an internet forum can enact their own rules about what can and cannot be discussed without it having anything to do with your right to free speech. 

[Cynjin]

32 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

"free speech" has nothing to do with an internet forum. The right to free speech simply means that congress cannot pass laws that would prohibit your right to free speech. Private entities such as the NFL or an internet forum can enact their own rules about what can and cannot be discussed without it having anything to do with your right to free speech. 

 

Yeah, no duh.  Do you just choose to ignore the entirety of what I wrote or did it slip past your ability to comprehend? 

 

That is also what was being discussed in other threads, the right of the NFL (a private entity) to enact rules governing their employees' ability to protest.

 

P.S.  Here is what I wrote earlier so you won't have to look for it.

 

Ah, free speech at its best.  Not that the Mods have to adhere to those principles, however, they seem to have indicated through their posts that they believe free speech should be allowed even in a non-governmental situation.

[Jason_]

9 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Yeah, no duh.  Do you just choose to ignore the entirety of what I wrote or did it slip past your ability to comprehend? 

 

then why bring free speech into the discussion of the  moderation of this forum?

[Nadine]

And it's a wrap

[Nadine]

@Reality Check

 

@NFLfan asked me to post this reply to you

 

Tim Thomas and the Eagles players who declined the White House visits for political reasons. The following articles lists several.

 

http://theweek.com/articles/460872/18-athletes-who-refused-visit-white-house