Heroes & Goats (Mile High Miracle Divisional Round Edition)

**Mista T** · 01-20-2013, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

How about you read (and comprehend ) & move on, OK?

How about you find another message board for the purpose of hijacking feel-good discussions into discussions of social-political messages? This place has never been "PC", and we're not going to start now.

Now, you can move on ... hopefully elsewhere!

**RAVENOUS52** · 01-20-2013, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

I don't give a flying fuck whether you think it's "whiny", but FYI:

Rape is never an appropriate subject for humor. Period.

Which you would understand if you'd ever been close to someone who'd been raped. (My guess is that if you're over 16 you have been--it's a lot more common than most guys realize--but you don't know it because the victim(s) never confided in you. And maybe that's because they weren't comfortable doing so. Considering your willingness to make a joke out of it...)

How about you read (and comprehend ) & move on, OK?

Your rant is a non-issue. Won't affect people being raped one bit. You don't like my take, fine. Don't click on the fucking link.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-20-2013, 02:15 PM

If you can't take someone disagreeing with you, don't write the fucking joke.

I'm also confused how a poster responding to a statement in the OP can be considered a thread hijack. Lob didn't bring up rape, OP did.

**ballhawk** · 01-20-2013, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Saltwater_Rider

Ed Reed is quiet because he is staying deep and keeping it all underneath. His staying in position is helping us win.

+1

Reed and Pollard's deep coverage are what allowed us to contain Manning. I'd give game balls to both of them for sticking to their assignments and forcing Manning to attack the short/intermediate part of the field, where he inevitably found Corey Graham a couple times.

**jonboy79** · 01-20-2013, 02:44 PM

With Reed's complete avoidance of tackling coupled with his reduction in big plays as of late, I find myself hoping he retires after we win the SB. It's kind of like dumping a GF, I certainly don't want to see her(or Ed Reed in this case) with anyone else.

But at this point, I wouldn't want him back for almost any price... Vet Min? of course, but not more then MAYBE $3m/1yr.

When he finally does hit someone he gets a penalty/fine.

**Sirdowski** · 01-20-2013, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

If you can't take someone disagreeing with you, don't write the fucking joke.

Seriously, situational context is everything. Unwarranted emotional appeal, noone is condoning rape. For Christ's sake there's a disclaimer in the OP anyhow.

Disagreeing with what? A joke? So what's to discuss or respond to?

"I don't like that joke"

".... Alright? "

Please tell me you realize how ridiculous this sounds.

**PerpetuallyBored74** · 01-21-2013, 09:24 AM

Surprised to see Oher & Reed among the goats; neither deserved that.
Koch, however, was a goat for kicking to the middle of the field when the coverage was expecting the ball to go to the right. That contributed to one on Holliday's return TDs.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-21-2013, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

Seriously, situational context is everything. Unwarranted emotional appeal, noone is condoning rape. For Christ's sake there's a disclaimer in the OP anyhow.

Disagreeing with what? A joke? So what's to discuss or respond to?

"I don't like that joke"

".... Alright? "

Please tell me you realize how ridiculous this sounds.

I keep going back to an example I used when discussing this with a mod. If I wrote the following:

Originally Posted by A totally fictional and intentionally offensive example

"Disclaimer, this is just a joke. Don't take it seriously.

Hey guys, Tom Brady looked as dumb as a nigger with a paint chip addiction yesterday."

Would people be quick to defend it as "just a joke" if Lob had called me out by saying that statement was racist as fuck? Why are people so quick to defend misogynistic rape humor? Do people believe "it's just a joke" exempts a statement from being criticized?

As for my statement:

If you can't take someone disagreeing with you, don't write the fucking joke.

I wrote that in response to R52 saying:

You don't like my take, fine. Don't click on the fucking link.

He doesn't get to say what he wants, and then tell people they are wrong to respond to him. If he didn't want someone to tell him that they found his words inappropriate, then he shouldn't have posted on a message board where we get to respond to each other's words.

**Sirdowski** · 01-21-2013, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

I keep going back to an example I used when discussing this with a mod. If I wrote the following:

Would people be quick to defend it as "just a joke" if Lob had called me out by saying that statement was racist as fuck? Why are people so quick to defend misogynistic rape humor? Do people believe "it's just a joke" exempts a statement from being criticized?

This is a false equivalence plain and simple.

He doesn't get to say what he wants, and then tell people they are wrong to respond to him. If he didn't want someone to tell him that they found his words inappropriate, then he shouldn't have posted on a message board where we get to respond to each other's words.

If he he felt that strongly he should have contacted a mod and R52 via PM. Instead he wanted to make a show of it by hijacking the thread.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-21-2013, 10:33 AM

In what way is my post false equivalence. It's an offensive joke, prefaced with a disclaimer to not take it seriously. You said that means that people shouldn't complain about it.

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

If he he felt that strongly he should have contacted a mod and R52 via PM. Instead he wanted to make a show of it by hijacking the thread.

I think someone is going to have to explain to me how responding to a post's actual words with a response related to those words, is hijacking.

He stated an opinion that is clearly unpopular here, that doesn't make it a hijack. If HE had been the one to bring rape up out of the blue, it would be a hijack.

**FellsPointRaven** · 01-21-2013, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

Seriously, situational context is everything. Unwarranted emotional appeal, noone is condoning rape. For Christ's sake there's a disclaimer in the OP anyhow.

Could you not use Christ's name in vain? Anyone who has been around a hardcore Christian, or who indeed was present when Jesus was crucified, would have serious problems with your flippant 'turn of phrase'.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-21-2013, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by FellsPointRaven

Could you not use Christ's name in vain? Anyone who has been around a hardcore Christian, or who indeed was present when Jesus was crucified, would have serious problems with your flippant 'turn of phrase'.

Now THIS is actually false equivalence as we have very few documented cases of crucifixion survivors using the internet, compared to nearly 1 in 5 women being the victim of sexual assault. Thanks for helping illustrate my point!

**Sirdowski** · 01-21-2013, 11:40 AM

I hate to cite Wiki but it has the point I'm making outlined the best:

"Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:

The relevance of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.

The amount and variety of the examples in the analogy.

The number of characteristics that the things being compared share."

If you want to use your analogy to paint a picture, fine. But to use it as exhibit A in your argument, based off the above criteria, doesn't give you a leg to stand on. In a word, specious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy