Taking a stand against racism is not a political issue, and frankly I find it just a tad bit disturbing that people view it as such. It's a human rights issue. Always has been. I really struggle to see how anyone can take issue with this video - other than the fact that it alone may not ultimately inspire much change. They made a statement, now let's see if their actions live up to it.

(08-30-2020, 12:28 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I hate overpaid athletes making political statements about anything and yes social injustice is up for debate. Why no mention of abortion and fact almost 2400 babies are killed each year? Of those 80% are minorities? Is that an injustice? If so, why silent?

I want to watch and enjoy sports and entertainment and would prefer they keep their political views to themselves, just like they do with abortion.

I can sympathize with this take. I absolutely understand why people look to sports to escape all of this stuff. I can also only imagine if athletes, whom I don't look to as experts in anything except for their chosen sport, were free to use their sport being on TV to shove their personal agenda in people's faces.

It's a very interesting time we're in in that way. I appreciate athletes speaking out about what's important to them.  I'm just not sure that should be front and center on the field/court.

What the Bengals did/said I am fine with and am eager to see what they roll out over the next year.

On the abortion front, I heard an interview where someone pointed out that planned parenthood is actually stopping black population growth. There was a statistic given where more black children were aborted in NYC one year than were born. I looked it up and in 2013, that was 100% TRUE.

If you haven't watched Dave Chappelle's bit on abortion from his latest Netflix series, it's hilarious. He basically said before the bit that you can figure out his stance by the end of it. At the end he said "You body your choice, but my money should mean my choice". Meaning, if you can choose to have it, he should be free to choose to not support the child.... since, you know, everybody gets a choice now. Which, of course, isn't going to happen.

^ His big picture point, to me, was that there isn't/shouldn't be a choice in either scenario.

(08-30-2020, 09:48 PM)Jhowdy54 Wrote: I was mainly getting to the fact that something like this can sometimes break a team a part.  What if Burrow refused to make a statement?  What if Mike Brown said absolutely not on going to the museum and making a statement.  

Ok, that makes way more sense now.

That would have been an ecellent thing to have added at the end or begining of your post. I read it originally and was like, "is this in the wrong spot?" 

(08-31-2020, 10:02 AM)PDub80 Wrote: If you haven't watched Dave Chappelle's bit on abortion from his latest Netflix series, it's hilarious. He basically said before the bit that you can figure out his stance by the end of it. At the end he said "You body your choice, but my money should mean my choice". Meaning, if you can choose to have it, he should be free to choose to not support the child.... since, you know, everybody gets a choice now. Which, of course, isn't going to happen.

^ His big picture point, to me, was that there isn't/shouldn't be a choice in either scenario.

This is a classic "false equivalency" argument.  Once the child is born neither party can chose not to support it.

Right now men think it is not fair that a woman has the choice to have an abortion, but it would not be fair to give the man the choice over the woman's body either.  The fact that the fertilized egg can not develop outside a woman's body makes the current law the only fair way to do it.  But in  a few years technology will advance to the point that if the father wants the child he can have it removed form the woman's body and force her to support it as a living child.  Until then the current law is the only fair way to do it.

(08-31-2020, 02:56 AM)samhain Wrote: I don't expect things to get all that crazy with this organization.  Burrow will speak on the issue if asked and the team will more than likely have a few gestures planned.  I still don't see the Bengals being a team that will sit out in protest or engage in activities that have an impact on games. 

Mike is loyal to his players and will do what it takes to keep them happy, but I'd guess that behind close doors he's doing all he can to keep it from getting too out of hand  I think the video is a pretty good balance. 

I dont think most players/teams/fans see kneeling as being all that crazy anymore.  At any rate this thread is getting moved or locked soon. 

(08-31-2020, 12:11 AM)Tony Wrote: It's never gonna be good enough.. I keep telling people this.. I honestly believe it makes things worse.. I'm done with the NBA over the polotics.. I don't think I could ever stop watching the Bengals though...
Also, ESPN is straight torture to watch right now in these times...

(08-31-2020, 02:30 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I dont think most players/teams/fans see kneeling as being all that crazy anymore.  

This.

Minds are being changed.

I thought the statement was well thought out and struck the right tone. It said we need to confront racism and acknowledge it's existence. Of course it exists. What they did not do is do what the Ravens did, and make statements about specific incidences which is going to not turn out to be what they said it was. Once again, the new Bengals rise to the top. They seem to be doing just about everything right.

(08-31-2020, 02:59 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I thought the statement was well thought out and struck the right tone. It said we need to confront racism and acknowledge it's existence. Of course it exists. What they did not do is do what the Ravens did, and make statements about specific incidences which is going to not turn out to be what they said it was. Once again, the new Bengals rise to the top. They seem to be doing just about everything right.

Pete Carrol sure said some dumb shit.

Bruce Arians was smart about what he said. I am thinking Tampa might be the favorite this year in the NFC with adding Brady,
Gronk and company. And yes, I liked how our team handled all this.

(08-31-2020, 12:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a classic "false equivalency" argument.  Once the child is born neither party can chose not to support it.

Right now men think it is not fair that a woman has the choice to have an abortion, but it would not be fair to give the man the choice over the woman's body either.  The fact that the fertilized egg can not develop outside a woman's body makes the current law the only fair way to do it.  But in  a few years technology will advance to the point that if the father wants the child he can have it removed form the woman's body and force her to support it as a living child.  Until then the current law is the only fair way to do it.

What other choice does someone get to make with their body, but force someone else to pay half (or more) for?

I guess you and I have a different definition of "equivalent" . It's about choice, per the positions taken. Fairness = Her body her choice. My money, my choice.

No one should get to make a choice, and that is what abortion is being billed as... as a choice that one person gets to make... and then make someone else have to help pay for their choice. That's La La Land thinking.

^ That's the very definition of unfair.

BTW, the idea that so many abortions are done due to health reasons is such BS and everyone sane knows it. Abortion via planned Parenthood is post pregnancy birth control for a huge majority of women.

If the Gov. funds these programs, I would rather pay for forced sterilization that requires people to pass a parenting class/test and show financial means before being allowed off of it, than pay for post pregnancy birth control.

(08-31-2020, 06:18 PM)PDub80 Wrote: What other choice does someone get to make with their body, but force someone else to pay half (or more) for?

I guess you and I have a different definition of "equivalent" . It's about choice, per the positions taken. Fairness = Her body her choice. My money, my choice.

No one should get to make a choice, and that is what abortion is being billed as... as a choice that one person gets to make... and then make someone else have to help pay for their choice. That's La La Land thinking.

^ That's the very definition of unfair.

BTW, the idea that so many abortions are done due to health reasons is such BS and everyone sane knows it. Abortion via planned Parenthood is post pregnancy birth control for a huge majority of women.

If the Gov. funds these programs, I would rather pay for forced sterilization that requires people to pass a parenting class/test and show financial means before being allowed off of it, than pay for post pregnancy birth control.

Agree.

(08-31-2020, 06:22 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Agree.

You agree with government-forced sterilization?

(08-31-2020, 06:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You agree with government-forced sterilization?

No lol but I agree with everything else. Thanks for catching that lmao

(08-31-2020, 12:11 AM)Tony Wrote: It's never gonna be good enough.. I keep telling people this.. I honestly believe it makes things worse.. I'm done with the NBA over the polotics.. I don't think I could ever stop watching the Bengals though...
Also, ESPN is straight torture to watch right now in these times...

I'd be willing to bet that some of the guys ESPN has fired for talking politics in the past are choking on the irony of what is going on now.

And I 100% agree that these token displays are an enemy of change.  The real work gets done behind the scenes.  Unfortunately, in today's world, there is no behind the scenes.

(08-31-2020, 06:18 PM)PDub80 Wrote: What other choice does someone get to make with their body, but force someone else to pay half (or more) for?

The man has a choice to make sure the woman does not become pregnant.

So it is his choice, not hers.

But in reality you don't believe in choice at all.  You don't think the man should be allowed to force the woman to have an abortion at all.  But you still try to claim the man is the "victim" when a woman chooses NOT to have an abortion.  So either you are saying that the man should have 100% control over the decision to have an abortion or you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

(08-31-2020, 06:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You agree with government-forced sterilization?

(08-31-2020, 06:29 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: No lol but I agree with everything else. Thanks for catching that lmao

That part was not meant to be serious. lol!

(09-01-2020, 03:24 PM)PDub80 Wrote: That part was not meant to be serious. lol!

I've heard people be serious about that.

How the hell did this devolve into a discussion about abortion?

I know why folks are remiss to take their PnR discussions to that forum, but when we are now discussion abortion rights we've got to do something. Perhaps a "Squad Free" zone in PnR.

As to the OP: A former Bengal is doing something a little different:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/jaguars-player-will-honor-david-dorn-on-his-helmet-report

Quote:Jacksonville Jaguars tight end Tyler Eifert will pay tribute to slain former St. Louis Police Department Capt. David Dorn.

Eifert will honor Dorn on his helmet, according to Alex Triantafilou, the chairman of the Hamilton County, Ohio, Republican Party.

"Got some very good news from former @Bengals player/current @Jaguars player @tylereifert that he will honor fallen police officer David Dorn on his helmet," the former prosecutor wrote on social media. "Always been a fan of Tyler’s and God bless him!"

(09-01-2020, 04:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How the hell did this devolve into a discussion about abortion?

I know why folks are remiss to take their PnR discussions to that forum, but when we are now discussion abortion rights we've got to do something. Perhaps a "Squad Free" zone in PnR.

As to the OP: A former Bengal is doing something a little different:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/jaguars-player-will-honor-david-dorn-on-his-helmet-report

Heck yeah... way to go Tyler! Although I'm betting the league disallows it.

(09-01-2020, 08:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The man has a choice to make sure the woman does not become pregnant.

So it is his choice, not hers.

So does the woman.

So it's both of their choices.