A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://www.vikingsmessageboard.com/
Funkytown wrote: That's admirable. I'm glad you are trying to stay educated and open. I mean it. That's awesome.
A few years, huh? What...? You're like 29, right?
You're too kind.Am I right? The way you try to degrade people based on how educated they are, is pretty standard for those who had smooth sailing through their education . And how is that attacking you? What you said to King James, that's attacking. And wasn't allowed here at one time. Check out the rules.NextQuestion wrote:Ha, hypocrite much? You're the one attacking me by saying I'm some trust fund kid who didn't have to pay for college. Doh' Kay! Where does that come from?
King James deserves to get ripped for what he said as it is not educated at all and people will take offense to what he said. You can choose to be liberal, conservative, Jewish, Catholic, etc but sexual orientation is something you're born with.
Seriously, props for the mods letting this thread go. I'll be happy to talk football with you guys n gals in other threads and leave personal things aside, but if we're going to be open on this topic...let's keep it that way.
Also:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... nt-3078456
Understandable. After all, many of his bosses were against him. This relates to what I was talking about earlier. Yeah, Wilf had his back, but was Wilf around enough to really control the situation? It's not unreasonable to think that Kluwe felt alone and uncertain of his future with the team because of all that was happening. That's a bit intimidating.Kluwe explained to PFT via text message last week that he chose not to complain within the Vikings organization after hearing Priefer’s alleged comments because he “didn’t trust anyone.”
Come on dude let it go!!!!fiestavike wrote:On whether sexual orientation is purely biological or a combination of nature/nurture...
...Ancient Greece!
Explain a society with near %100 rate of homosexual male behavior on purely biological grounds....
I don't really believe its a choice (for some of the reasons you mention). I'm not sure anyone is 'born' that way, but they could be. I believe psychological factors during their life (perhaps in childhood) contribute to the orientation they experience when they are older. I have no more scientific evidence to back this up then I do to suggest they are born that way.NextQuestion wrote: 3.) I don't really look into scientific studies about stuff like this. To me, it's clear... you're born with certain feelings towards a certain gender and when I speak to my friends who are they always say "always have liked X better". I mean, one of my best friends was married to a DUDE for a few years just to please her extremely religious small town family. When they got divorced and she started dating a girl, her family basically dis-owned her for a year. She told me on tour, "Just kind of always liked girls and felt forced to be married to one of my best friends". I don't want to live in a society where we close the door on other humans.
I'm sorry, but you are using an historic example of homosexual behavior out of context. It's more than what we can go into here, but that behavior occurred in a different social reality and for different reasons. Apples and oranges.fiestavike wrote:On whether sexual orientation is purely biological or a combination of nature/nurture...
...Ancient Greece!
Explain a society with near %100 rate of homosexual male behavior on purely biological grounds....
Why SHOULDN'T we focus on Kluwe? He said that he told the world about what Priefer said and what Spielman/Frazier did/didn't do about it for the purpose of making something happen to Priefer as well as trying to eliminate homophobia in the workplace...that's called an agenda. The #1 thing about agendas is finding out why they're doing something. It's concerning when Kluwe claims to be such an "activist" about issues and that his entire argument rests on the idea that he got cut BECAUSE he was an "activist," when really, he's just trying to get some guy fired.Funkytown wrote: I've gathered that you feel that way, and I think you have a point with it. I just don't think so much focus should be put on Kluwe. He and what he did/said aren't the biggest issues, for me. Because, I actually believe what Kluwe said, so I'm forming my comparisons and opinions based on that.
*cough* straw man *cough*Funkytown wrote: "Come on, man. It was just a joke."--...Priefer?
...just as Priefer had no right to taunt Kluwe for being MORE tolerant.
The hypocrisy continues...
Why can't it be both (letting his story be told and a bit of revenge)? Is that so unreasonable? I gathered it was a bit of both, and for me, Kluwe's side of this issue isn't my biggest problem. I've accepted his possible "motives", and even doing so, what Priefer was doing is worse. That's why I don't focus as much on Kluwe. I'm not denying he could have probably handled it better, but, regardless, that still doesn't take away from the bigger issue here--Priefer and his professional conduct and workplace behavior.thatguy wrote: Why SHOULDN'T we focus on Kluwe? He said that he told the world about what Priefer said and what Spielman/Frazier did/didn't do about it for the purpose of making something happen to Priefer as well as trying to eliminate homophobia in the workplace...that's called an agenda. The #1 thing about agendas is finding out why they're doing something. It's concerning when Kluwe claims to be such an "activist" about issues and that his entire argument rests on the idea that he got cut BECAUSE he was an "activist," when really, he's just trying to get some guy fired.
If Kluwe really just wants to get a guy fired, fine...but he says it's about so much more than that - and that I cannot believe simply because of the way that he handled the situation. Whatever Priefer said was sickening and speaks for itself...but Kluwe is trying to get his time in the limelight while he still can and that's why it's frustrating - because that's not activism...that's attention-whoring.
Because it'd be nice for someone to stand-up on this issue of homophobia in the workplace (especially the NFL) without having some sort of obvious ulterior motive. Revenge is not the way to go about standing up for an issue - making it known and letting society decide what's right and wrong is what's best. It softens his message overall. He had a great opportunity to expose a much bigger problem in society, but instead, he took the low road and targeted one specific individual with the goal of getting them out of coaching forever.Funkytown wrote:
Why can't it be both (letting his story be told and a bit of revenge)? Is that so unreasonable? I gathered it was a bit of both, and for me, Kluwe's side of this issue isn't my biggest problem. I've accepted his possible "motives", and even doing so, what Priefer was doing is worse. That's why I don't focus as much on Kluwe. I'm not denying he could have probably handled it better, but, regardless, that still doesn't take away from the bigger issue here--Priefer and his professional conduct and workplace behavior.
Can't believe Kluwe is viewed as a bad guy in the NFL when we have people like Michael Vick still playingmmvikes wrote:Personally,I can't believe there are this many pages dedicated to anything Kluwe said. Who gives a flying fig. The more his mouth moved the worse he was at punting. Does anyone here REALLY give a crap what Kluwe says?
I don't think he's a bad guy...I just think Kluwe loves the attention.NextQuestion wrote: Can't believe Kluwe is viewed as a bad guy in the NFL when we have people like Michael Vick still playing
