NFL to propose to improve a team's draft position if it hires a person of color as HC or GM

[PatriotsReign]

you wouldn’t be able to handle it

No one envies you IC
You don’t post much content, do you?
You just like to respond to the comments of others

 

[IllegalContact]

No one envies you IC
You don’t post much content, do you?
You just like to respond to the comments of others

don't be angry

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

I hope it doesn't happen this way.

Sounds like a terrible rule change and no I am NOT racist.

 

[iapatsfan]

I hope it doesn't happen this way.

Sounds like a terrible rule change and no I am NOT racist.

Unfortunately you are wrong. You are a racist. A 2020 racist is defined as any individual who does not want to take skin color into consideration when making personnel decisions. You just didn't get the memo from the Nunch.

 

[fnordcircle]

 

[IllegalContact]

Unfortunately you are wrong. You are a racist. A 2020 racist is defined as any individual who does not want to take skin color into consideration when making personnel decisions. You just didn't get the memo from the Nunch.

 

[iapatsfan]

View attachment 27407

Yep

 

[captain stone]

I wish Bill would hire a former NFL WR as our WRs Coach, preferably one with experience, and if he happened to be black, then that's a win-win...

 

[fnordcircle]

Unfortunately you are wrong. You are a racist. A 2020 racist is defined as any individual who does not want to take skin color into consideration when making personnel decisions. You just didn't get the memo from the Nunch.

Why do you guys care so much if some lefty queer calls you a racist?

Aren't you all strong, gargantuan ****ed alpha males? My soyboy, genderfluid ass calling you a racist shouldn't matter at all to you towering pillars of masculinity.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I wish Bill would hire a former NFL WR as our WRs Coach, preferably one with experience, and if he happened to be black, then that's a win-win...

Troy Brown

.

 

[Tony2046]

Why do you guys care so much if some lefty queer calls you a racist?

Aren't you all strong, gargantuan ****ed alpha males? My soyboy, genderfluid ass calling you a racist shouldn't matter at all to you towering pillars of masculinity.

Don't let him fool you. The Cornshucker can handle the big cobs.

 

[iapatsfan]

Why do you guys care so much if some lefty queer calls you a racist?

Aren't you all strong, gargantuan ****ed alpha males? My soyboy, genderfluid ass calling you a racist shouldn't matter at all to you towering pillars of masculinity.

It doesn't matter.

 

[fnordcircle]

It doesn't matter.

Yeah, I often post a ton about stuff I think doesn't matter.

 

[iapatsfan]

Yeah, I often post a ton about stuff I think doesn't matter.

This is how the written word comes up short in these types of conversations. Proper word emphasis and context are lost.

"It doesn't matter" was a direct response to your gender questioning, male genital-obsessed post. It wasn't referring to the subject of the thread.

Keep trying...you'll get there.

 

[1960Pats]

Why do you guys care so much if some lefty queer calls you a racist?

Aren't you all strong, gargantuan ****ed alpha males? My soyboy, genderfluid ass calling you a racist shouldn't matter at all to you towering pillars of masculinity.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

 

[Joker]

FWIW, Lefty Queer won 20 games and the Shy Young award pitching for the Albuequerque Sun Queens last season.

 

[MainePatsFan26]

I’m saying facts are facts and opinions are not right or wrong but an opinion that is a conclusion based upon incorrect facts is wrong.
Example:
Belichick has won the most SBs is a fact. It’s either right or wrong.
Belichick is the GOAT is an opinion. You can agree or disagree but it’s not right or wrong.
Belichick isn’t the GOAT because he hasn’t won the most SBs is an opinion based upon incorrect facts.

Opinions cannot be wrong, even though I understand where you're coming from.

For example, let's use your example of claiming Belichick isn't the GOAT. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about that subjective take on his coaching. You claim that the opinion, however, is wrong if it cites Belichick didn't win the most Super Bowls. However, does the rationale for an opinion make the opinion itself -- sans any explanation -- right or wrong?

Let's use a Schrödinger's cat-like approach.

In scenario one, I claim Belichick isn't the GOAT and leave it at that. In this scenario, my opinion is neither right nor wrong.

In scenario two, I claim Belichick isn't the GOAT and note he hasn't won the most Super Bowls. The facts that I cite are wrong, but is the opinion itself?

In both scenarios, I claim Belichick isn't the GOAT as my opinion. Across both scenarios that opinion doesn't change although I do supply in the second scenario additional anecdotal rationale for the opinion offered. But can the same exact opinion -- Belichick isn't the GOAT -- be neither right nor wrong in one scenario but wrong in another?

My answer would be a resounding no. In both cases the exact same opinion gets shared just with different degrees of context. But that context doesn't shift the general opinion.

 

[Calhoun44]

Opinions cannot be wrong, even though I understand where you're coming from.

For example, let's use your example of claiming Belichick isn't the GOAT. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about that subjective take on his coaching. You claim that the opinion, however, is wrong if it cites Belichick didn't win the most Super Bowls. However, does the rationale for an opinion make the opinion itself -- sans any explanation -- right or wrong?

Let's use a Schrödinger's cat-like approach.

In scenario one, I claim Belichick isn't the GOAT and leave it at that. In this scenario, my opinion is neither right nor wrong.

In scenario two, I claim Belichick isn't the GOAT and note he hasn't won the most Super Bowls. The facts that I cite are wrong, but is the opinion itself?

In both scenarios, I claim Belichick isn't the GOAT as my opinion. Across both scenarios that opinion doesn't change although I do supply in the second scenario additional anecdotal rationale for the opinion offered. But can the same exact opinion -- Belichick isn't the GOAT -- be neither right nor wrong in one scenario but wrong in another?

My answer would be a resounding no. In both cases the exact same opinion gets shared just with different degrees of context. But that context doesn't shift the general opinion.

But if an opinion is built on false assumptions, what does that render the opinion? How would you describe that? Maybe moot? or ???

 

[Ring 6]

Opinions cannot be wrong, even though I understand where you're coming from.

For example, let's use your example of claiming Belichick isn't the GOAT. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about that subjective take on his coaching. You claim that the opinion, however, is wrong if it cites Belichick didn't win the most Super Bowls. However, does the rationale for an opinion make the opinion itself -- sans any explanation -- right or wrong?

Let's use a Schrödinger's cat-like approach.

In scenario one, I claim Belichick isn't the GOAT and leave it at that. In this scenario, my opinion is neither right nor wrong.

In scenario two, I claim Belichick isn't the GOAT and note he hasn't won the most Super Bowls. The facts that I cite are wrong, but is the opinion itself?

In both scenarios, I claim Belichick isn't the GOAT as my opinion. Across both scenarios that opinion doesn't change although I do supply in the second scenario additional anecdotal rationale for the opinion offered. But can the same exact opinion -- Belichick isn't the GOAT -- be neither right nor wrong in one scenario but wrong in another?

My answer would be a resounding no. In both cases the exact same opinion gets shared just with different degrees of context. But that context doesn't shift the general opinion.

But that’s not what I said.
I said an opinion cannot be right or wrong but an opinion can be based upon an incorrect fact. That does not make the opinion wrong, it makes it based upon an incorrect fact.
Of course the distinction here would be that a discussion or “argument” about opinions is very different when discussing whether the opinion is right or wrong, which is pointless vs discussing the underlying facts.