UGAHusker
-
Posts
1,509 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by UGAHusker
-
-
I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.
Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.
Does giving flak to someone for their personal beliefs not promote inequality? We are all allowed to think whatever we want; by downgrading someone else's beliefs are you not implying that their views are at least incorrect if not inferior i.e unequal?
I think that's a fair question. I would say it does not also promote inequality because discriminating against gays doesn't seem (yes, key word, "seem") to be well justified. The only reasoning I've seen behind this kind of discrimination is "I don't like it" and "the Bible says so." Neither of these are legitimate. If someone holds an idea with some legitimate justification then I cannot so clearly oppose it. Of course I'd like to think my beliefs are coherent but I suppose it's impossible to know for sure.
Egg zactly. "I don't like it" and "the Bible says so" seem pretty stupid to me as well, but if someone else defaults to those reasons, who is anyone to impy to them that their beliefs are incorrect. On social issues such as these, it is almost impossible to prove a position one way or another with "legitamite justification". What constitutes "legitamite justification" or plain legitamcy for that matter?
- 1
-
I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.
Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.
Does giving flak to someone for their personal beliefs not promote inequality? We are all allowed to think whatever we want; by downgrading someone else's beliefs are you not implying that their views are at least incorrect if not inferior i.e unequal?
You're trying too hard.
You're just being typical you, but at least you're doing it the best that you can!
-
I think giving people flak for hating gay people is not "unnecessary" because I feel a moral obligation to at the very least oppose views that promote inequality.
Bravo. There's hope for humanity while people still realize this.
Does giving flak to someone for their personal beliefs not promote inequality? We are all allowed to think whatever we want; by downgrading someone else's beliefs are you not implying that their views are at least incorrect if not inferior i.e unequal?
-
Unfortunately, the "right" to play college football doesn't exist.
Correct.
My point isn't that I want to discriminate against these guys. My point is, is that it is, for the most part, allowed to happen. Giving people flak for having a problem with gay people is unnecessarry. Society is still going to evolve without them. At the end of the day, though, if people want to hold beliefs about anything they want, hostile, racist, discriminatory, whatever, they are allowed. In most cases, they can even act on these beliefs. Sorry. By-product of the "freedom" that we feel entitled to in this country.This is an internet message board. People can give people flak for anything, from the team/player they like to the coach they support to whatever. As long as they do it within the rules, that's exactly what this board is for.
You are also correct in that what a person believes is not subject to the law. The thoughts you harbor are your own, and nobody can take them away from you, whether those thoughts be racist, homicidal, homophobic, whatever.
It's when they act on those beliefs that they can end up in trouble. Not always, but it's a rare person who has the wherewithal to think and speak things but not act on those things. Those folks are often hypocrites, in my experience, but whatever. I'm probably more experienced than most in the field of discrimination.
Great!
And now that you have established that people can give flak for anything, I'll assume that those giving the ones who appear to have a problem with gays on the football team are just utilzing the board for its intended purpose. Personally, I live in a positive world; I'll leave y'all to the normative.
-
Somebody please find me the document that says that playing college football is a "human right". When this document is provided to me, I will post under the monicker "donkey lipssss" for the next 4 years.
-
Why does it matter if someone has a problem with gays or not? The beauty of this country is that you are allowed to discriminate against others (not talking about work settings or other similar scenarios) for whatever reason you want while also being able to like just about anything that you want to like for whatever reason. If someone has no problem with gays, great. If someone has a problem, who cares? If they have deep-seeded beliefs why not just let them go with that? Because one or two guys on a message board have a problem with an openly gay Husker won't be grounds for any disciplinary action whatsoever. At the same time, his dislike for that player due to his sexual orientation isn't (or at least shouldn't) rile anyone up to the point that they become upset that someone would think/feel that way. A lot of people dislike Taylor Martinez because he appears to be a smarmy, self-centered jerk. Although many disagree, I don't see the same kind of outcry protecting smarmy, self-centered jerks that I'm seeing here. What's the difference? Respect a person's right to discriminate.
Discriminate? Really? Thats a terrible choice in words. Discriminate is something far worse than judging someone. Discriminating is actually allowing someone not to do something based on their race/religon/sexualoreintation/etc. You can judge all you want, it's going to happen in today's society we all know that. But discriminating? No.
Uhhh, yeah. If I start the UGAHusker social group and decide that nobody with last names starting with a "K" is going to be allowed in, who is can stop me? Nobody. Discrimination in this sense is perfectly legal.
No one has any problem with this kind of "discrimination." What people have a problem with is when you say "No one with a last name starting with 'K' can have the same rights as me."
What "rights" are you speaking of? The "right" to be a member of a Division 1-A college football team?
Human rights. I'm speaking generally, but yes, the "right" to play football as well. I don't see how that would be any different than when we excluded black people from playing baseball. (When I said "you" above I don't literally mean you, UGAHusker).
Unfortunately, the "right" to play college football doesn't exist.
My point isn't that I want to discriminate against these guys. My point is, is that it is, for the most part, allowed to happen. Giving people flak for having a problem with gay people is unnecessarry. Society is still going to evolve without them. At the end of the day, though, if people want to hold beliefs about anything they want, hostile, racist, discriminatory, whatever, they are allowed. In most cases, they can even act on these beliefs. Sorry. By-product of the "freedom" that we feel entitled to in this country.
-
What "rights" are you talking about taking away? Coach has no women on the team; where is the ACLU calling for discrimination against women?
-
Why does it matter if someone has a problem with gays or not? The beauty of this country is that you are allowed to discriminate against others (not talking about work settings or other similar scenarios) for whatever reason you want while also being able to like just about anything that you want to like for whatever reason. If someone has no problem with gays, great. If someone has a problem, who cares? If they have deep-seeded beliefs why not just let them go with that? Because one or two guys on a message board have a problem with an openly gay Husker won't be grounds for any disciplinary action whatsoever. At the same time, his dislike for that player due to his sexual orientation isn't (or at least shouldn't) rile anyone up to the point that they become upset that someone would think/feel that way. A lot of people dislike Taylor Martinez because he appears to be a smarmy, self-centered jerk. Although many disagree, I don't see the same kind of outcry protecting smarmy, self-centered jerks that I'm seeing here. What's the difference? Respect a person's right to discriminate.
Discriminate? Really? Thats a terrible choice in words. Discriminate is something far worse than judging someone. Discriminating is actually allowing someone not to do something based on their race/religon/sexualoreintation/etc. You can judge all you want, it's going to happen in today's society we all know that. But discriminating? No.
Uhhh, yeah. If I start the UGAHusker social group and decide that nobody with last names starting with a "K" is going to be allowed in, who is can stop me? Nobody. Discrimination in this sense is perfectly legal.
No one has any problem with this kind of "discrimination." What people have a problem with is when you say "No one with a last name starting with 'K' can have the same rights as me."
What "rights" are you speaking of? The "right" to be a member of a Division 1-A college football team?
-
Why does it matter if someone has a problem with gays or not? The beauty of this country is that you are allowed to discriminate against others (not talking about work settings or other similar scenarios) for whatever reason you want while also being able to like just about anything that you want to like for whatever reason. If someone has no problem with gays, great. If someone has a problem, who cares? If they have deep-seeded beliefs why not just let them go with that? Because one or two guys on a message board have a problem with an openly gay Husker won't be grounds for any disciplinary action whatsoever. At the same time, his dislike for that player due to his sexual orientation isn't (or at least shouldn't) rile anyone up to the point that they become upset that someone would think/feel that way. A lot of people dislike Taylor Martinez because he appears to be a smarmy, self-centered jerk. Although many disagree, I don't see the same kind of outcry protecting smarmy, self-centered jerks that I'm seeing here. What's the difference? Respect a person's right to discriminate.
Discriminate? Really? Thats a terrible choice in words. Discriminate is something far worse than judging someone. Discriminating is actually allowing someone not to do something based on their race/religon/sexualoreintation/etc. You can judge all you want, it's going to happen in today's society we all know that. But discriminating? No.
Uhhh, yeah. If I start the UGAHusker social group and decide that nobody with last names starting with a "K" is going to be allowed in, who is can stop me? Nobody. Discrimination in this sense is perfectly legal.
But is that socailly acceptable? Being gay is more socially acceptable than someone discriminating against other people. Even if it is as small as people with the last name thats starts with "K".
I never said anything about discriminating being socially acceptable or not. All I said is that people can discriminate, hold prejudices, etc. against anyone, for any reason (again, except in select settings) to whatever extent they wish. If somone has a problem with gays (that you, interestingly enough, only find out due to a message board poll) and you don't how does that affect you?
Full disclosure, I voted for the top option. I could care less if Rex Burkhead gets all "sexy rexy" with Bruno.
-
Why does it matter if someone has a problem with gays or not? The beauty of this country is that you are allowed to discriminate against others (not talking about work settings or other similar scenarios) for whatever reason you want while also being able to like just about anything that you want to like for whatever reason. If someone has no problem with gays, great. If someone has a problem, who cares? If they have deep-seeded beliefs why not just let them go with that? Because one or two guys on a message board have a problem with an openly gay Husker won't be grounds for any disciplinary action whatsoever. At the same time, his dislike for that player due to his sexual orientation isn't (or at least shouldn't) rile anyone up to the point that they become upset that someone would think/feel that way. A lot of people dislike Taylor Martinez because he appears to be a smarmy, self-centered jerk. Although many disagree, I don't see the same kind of outcry protecting smarmy, self-centered jerks that I'm seeing here. What's the difference? Respect a person's right to discriminate.
Discriminate? Really? Thats a terrible choice in words. Discriminate is something far worse than judging someone. Discriminating is actually allowing someone not to do something based on their race/religon/sexualoreintation/etc. You can judge all you want, it's going to happen in today's society we all know that. But discriminating? No.
Uhhh, yeah. If I start the UGAHusker social group and decide that nobody with last names starting with a "K" is going to be allowed in, who is can stop me? Nobody. Discrimination in this sense is perfectly legal.
-
First off a couple post up someone said they are against gays for religious reasons. But for sake of argument lets just say it's 1 to 45, that would equal 2 to every 100. So tomorrow Nebraksa decides it supports this idea, the next day you lose the Pelini brothers maybe because it's against their religion and they are the 2 out of 100, or there morals or what ever. Are you ok with that? But let's take it one step futher, because this is a slippery slope and go back to boobies, for sake of argument lets say 65% of people are for topless cheerleaders, so we as a society decide thats ok, so they allow it, but it ruins your sell out streak. Are you ok with that? Then what about transvestites? Are you ok with Bo showing up to games dressed like a chick, assuming that atleast 50% or more of society say they are ok with it?
You know the "rules" and "laws" are not written to go by what the majority wants.
If any coach walks away from a position making several hundred thousand up to millions of dollars per year because of the gay players on the team, they're so boneheaded I wouldn't want them coaching here. The fact is that there are, right now, gay players on Nebraska's roster. With 120 kids playing at Nebraska between scholarship players and walk-ons, it's nearly inevitable. Same goes for Iowa, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, blah blah blah blah blah. Both Pelini and Ferentz know this, and neither has walked away from his job. Are you OK with the idea of Kirk Ferentz coaching Iowa knowing there are likely gay players on the roster?
Are you not okay with someone having a different opinion than you?
- 2
-
Why does it matter if someone has a problem with gays or not? The beauty of this country is that you are allowed to discriminate against others (not talking about work settings or other similar scenarios) for whatever reason you want while also being able to like just about anything that you want to like for whatever reason. If someone has no problem with gays, great. If someone has a problem, who cares? If they have deep-seeded beliefs why not just let them go with that? Because one or two guys on a message board have a problem with an openly gay Husker won't be grounds for any disciplinary action whatsoever. At the same time, his dislike for that player due to his sexual orientation isn't (or at least shouldn't) rile anyone up to the point that they become upset that someone would think/feel that way. A lot of people dislike Taylor Martinez because he appears to be a smarmy, self-centered jerk. Although many disagree, I don't see the same kind of outcry protecting smarmy, self-centered jerks that I'm seeing here. What's the difference? Respect a person's right to discriminate.
- 1
-
Just....no. Recipes only, please.
-
why do ugly people marry each other? Are they actually attracted to each other or do they both know they can't do any better and just settle?
2nd. Please answer.
-
5-peat from '80-'84 beeches
-
I always liked when I would visit my parents in Omaha and would pass Rose Blumkin Rd or Dr or whatever it was. My sister and I would always start laughing and my mom would get pissed and be like "she is a really famous/important local historical figure!" Blumpkin...hehe...
-
I'm tempted with Raiola, but think about David and Demorrio Williams on the field together. Nuts.
-
I mean, you gotta walk a fine line. You start with that kinda stuff and then little by little people start to take it further and further. The last think you want is college football slowly turning into NFL Jr.
- 1
-
I have a side-part. Fight me.
Do you really wanna throw down with the raddest of all the MODS?
Why would I want to fight Zoogies?
- 1
-
Many years ago during my sand volleyball phase I had a flat-top. It was easier to get the sand out of my hair. Today it's just the generic side-part that every d-bag on the block has. I'm so uncreative.
And no, that's not my car. If you see a little red sedan zipping by you with Rage blaring out the windows, that's me. No tricked out SUV.
I have a side-part. Fight me.
-
Where/what kind of company does she work for where they were able to host such a seemingly large production (videos, presentation, etc.)?
-
For being by far the coolest member of HuskerBoard (and the last to post)....I win...I always do!
-
Would you mind using this picture for Valentine instead? It amuses me.
-
Messing with scalpers is part of the fun! Give them some BS price, watch them turn away in disgust. Start walking away. Wait for the inevitable, "eh, eh, man, come back here. I can do this much but no lower." Then go lower. Always classic.
Is it okay to be a gay college athlete?
in Politics & Religion
Posted
Again, I agree and feel as though we probably possess very similar feelings on the original topic. Very good points.