1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Miami Dolphins are inept collectively at Social Media

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Vinny Fins, May 10, 2014.

  1. Well said daphins

    Too bad your wasting it on someone who is more interested in waiting for his turn to talk than he is in listening and having a thoughtful exchange.

    I commend you for your efforts
     
    daphins likes this.
  2. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Here is how i see it, if the Gay Community wants to join a Govt process that currently has a 55% failure rate..by all means

    If one wishes acceptance for being Gay, then welcome aboard, my worry is not over that, it is the idea that the downsides are never discussed, be that as it may, you are a Phins Brother

    I'd not see that happen to you or those you love
     

  3. Crazy talk. There is no down side to being gay
     
  4. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Read what he said again
     
  5. daphins

    daphins A-Style

    5,450
    2,632
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    2A = 2nd amendment.

    I understand the NFL's stance, my bigger issue is with society (and largely politics) themselves. We've put ourselves in a rut of demonizing those we don't agree with, and silencing them. This is viewed as "ok" when it aligns with our moral compass, but it incites a furious reaction when it attacks something we value.

    Take the battle for gay rights for instance. 15 years ago gays couldn't marry, they had to keep their lives secret from many people, employers, friends, family, etc. many were forced to hide who they were from the world because of the stigma attached to the way they are.

    A large driver of the anti-gay sentiment was conservative Christians. It was deplorable.

    Over the years a lot of those walls have been broken down. Gays can nice marry in many states, many are feeling the freedom of coming out of the closet, and are free to be who they are. There's still a ways to go, but overall we're trending in the right direction.

    This is all good, but what bugs me is the back-lash against conservative Christians and people who don't agree with gays (one of which I'm not btw, Christian but not conservative values just a causal observer of what's happening). We've allowed gays to come out of the closet, but we've made it en vogue to put those that don't agree with us in the closet. We ridicule them in the media, society, and fine them for sharing an opinion. What good is it to increase the rights for one part of our country and say "we accept you for who you are" while simultaneously telling others to shut up, or we'll silence them? We should reserve running people out of town for outspoken advocates that work to limit the rights of others.....not those test simply have an opinion on a given subject.

    This is a systemic problem that goes beyond just the discussion of gay rights. But that's what the pofo is for :)



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  6. BevoPhin

    BevoPhin Well-Known Member

    1,523
    795
    113
    Mar 15, 2013
    Does anyone have a link to a legit source with scientific data suggesting that homosexuality is not a choice, but in one's dna? I'm not saying that it's wrong if someone chooses to be gay, Im just curious for the informative read. I only had to take 1 bio class in college and dont remember.
     

  7. Does that matter?
     
    daphins likes this.
  8. Da 'Fins

    Da 'Fins Season Ticket Holder Staff Member Club Member

    34,739
    47,801
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    Birmingham, AL
    Just to clarify - this illustrates the core problem of "categorizing" groups without recognizing a broad range of exceptions. There are a myriad of "religious" views even within the category of those who would see homosexuality as a sin (and within a large number of denominations there have been on-going discussions for decades + about such and other topics) who do not fit that categorization or description. But, I think clarification needs to be made on this otherwise it exacerbates and fuels the on-going fallacy of the false dilemma leading to false generalizations.

    There are many religious folks who do, in fact, view homosexual sexual activity (in distinction from "homosexuality") as a 'sin' but, a) are not "grossed out" by gay men; and, b) do not see homosexuality as a "sin that should be stopped" any more than they want to enact laws against heterosexuality. They do not believe laws should be enacted against gays or others with respect to either their practices or with respect to general rights in the work-force or any other aspect of life. Though they view the practice as a sin they would not even single it out as worse or more significant than others - in fact they find the abuse of the poor, the selfish aggrandizement of wealth, and even the very propensity to desire laws against particular sins, creating a 'religious imperialism', to be radically significantly deeper problems - sins - than anything related to homosexuality.

    Moving beyond that note of clarification, the debate should be subdivided - between what a private organization asks of its employees (as in the case of the Miami Dolphins) and what should/should not be allowed to be stated in the "public square", though even in the former instance the law has addressed the issue of discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sex or sexual preference.

    (At its core, the issue on both sides is "fear" - both of the other and of their view or practice becoming outlawed in some way. Neither is a healthy perspective, ultimately).

    But, it is patently not just about, "being against gays" nor is the other side the "intolerant one." In some cases, it may well be the case that one side is "intolerant" (there are, indeed, many religious and non-religious people in our society who are deeply intolerant about a wide variety of views). In this case it is the case there are those aligned on both sides who are, in fact, "intolerant" of others. But there are also those who are not "intolerant" even though they express an opposing viewpoint. In fact, I know libertarians who have zero religion, do not believe homosexuality is a sin, who would also not have a problem with an individual voicing his or her displeasure with or support of such.

    But, back to the issue of "tolerance." Intolerance means simply - "not willing to allow the existence of views, beliefs, opinions or behaviors that differ from one's own."

    By it's very definition, anyone who argues that a particular view on any issue (pro or con that issue) should not be permitted to be voiced or expressed, is being "intolerant." It is incontrovertible.

    One simply has to get past the idea that the "expression of opposition to something" is therefore "an expression of intolerance of that idea or practice." It simply is not the case.
     
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Sigh.

    First of all, the bullets I used were given to me by you. See this:
    So when you say that I keep bringing up things, it makes this silly, because it was you.

    Secondly, everything in red is you complaining about me and not discussing the topic. So that leaves very little left of your post that is an actual attempt to refute my argument. So i will answer the stuff not in red.

    1. To reiterate, I didn't bring up rights, you did. As far as it being hypocritical to celebrate what one person is and not the other,..well...it isn't hypocritical at all. On numerous different levels, here are just a couple:
    a) The Dolphins "hypocrisy":
    The Dolphins don't employ Sams, but they do Jones. So there's no hypocrisy on there part for Jones getting reprimanded and Sams not.

    b) Society's "hypocrisy":
    Opposing viewpoints aren't automatically equal nor do they both automatically deserve respect. let's forget for a moment this is about gays. Let's say Jones was watching a flag folding ceremony for a fallen soldier and he tweeted the exact same thing. Does anyone genuinely believe anyone would banging the drum for his opinion to be treated respectfully? Of course not. Point being society has never given equal weight/respect to opposing viewpoints. So while there is hypocrisy in that, its hypocrisy that has existed since time began and to act as if this case is one of the rare examples of it happening is ridiculous. Every polarizing issue is like this from politics to religion to gun control and by both sides of the debate. Case in point, how much respect is the pro-Jones/anti-punishment giving to the opposing viewpoint? None and vice versa.

    So there we have it, what little hypocrisy there is as common as air and not really a valid gripe in this case unless the people complaining also acknowledge they are also being just as hypocritical. Since they aren't doing that, then the hypocrisy angle is not valid.

    2. The moral objections to being silenced are not valid either. Here's just a couple of reasons why:
    a) The "moral objection" to censorship is rarely equally applied. I know for a fact, many of the posters who have "moral objections" to this "censorship" were down right outraged at Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction and called for stricter censorship on live events and excessive fines, for example.

    b) We all understand and expect a code of conduct that we must follow knowing if we don't we could get in trouble with our employer. We know we cannot insult the customers. We know we aren't supposed to discuss certain topics with co-workers and clients. Hell, many of us even have pretty strict dress codes and grooming standards. No one on here is complaining that Disney won't let its male employees have long hair. That's an even worse form of censorship and control...where is the outrage?

    So with this point we see that your side's moral objections can't be taken seriously because our society has long history of censoring business conduct, dress and grooming...and the moral objection is rarely if ever, equally applied.

    3. Your claim of disproportionate outrage by the other side is either fictional or misplaced. Here's a few reasons why:
    a) Few on my side are outraged at what Jones did. You act as if people are picketing in the streets. The consensus is he's stupid (as even you have said). But there's little to no outrage.

    b)On the other hand, the closest to outrage any of have seen over this is....your side of the argument. You guys are the one that have been screaming about the "injustice" over an employee being punished by his employer for embarrassing the business....even though its built into the contract and has been exercised numerous times in the past without a peep from your side. The level of outrage over such a simple and obvious consequence to a stupid and embarrassing action (in a league that will fine players for the wrong socks, btw) is what is disproportionate.


    You keep acting like I'm making a decree that its all because of homophobia and I'm not backing up that claim with any evidence or logic. I've clearly showed how all 3 of your points are either completely false/invalid or at best, dubious. Considering those points are so invalid, its fair to look at why are they being made and why is the outrage really here. The obvious conclusion is because of the particular subject matter of homosexuality. Considering we have groups like Westboro and most states don't allow gay marriage and many people still feel exactly as Jones did, its not leap in logic to link the outrage to homophobia especially factoring in so far, all the other arguments are not valid.
     
  10. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Anything you say about sexual orientation that makes someone uncomfortable in the workplace constitutes harassment in many states.
     
  11. BicketyBam

    BicketyBam No Fist Pumps Allowed

    4,022
    1,879
    113
    Sep 6, 2010
    New Milford, CT



    Neither were in the workplace. They don't even have the same employer, unless you consider the NFL their true employer.
     
  12. BicketyBam

    BicketyBam No Fist Pumps Allowed

    4,022
    1,879
    113
    Sep 6, 2010
    New Milford, CT
    Jones is guilty of poor judgment. Without thinking things through, he brought negative media attention to the Dolphins organization. Given what Miami had just went through, the organization had to do what they felt would appease the masses to rectify the situation as best they could. I don't blame them for that.

    Heterosexuality is not a choice. We are born this way. I cannot help that my reaction to seeing two men passionately kiss is highly unpleasant. It's just the way I am wired. If that makes me a homophobe, well there isn't much I can do about it. Blame my genetic makeup. If Jones is wired like me, there is nothing he can do about what he felt. But given the circumstances, he should not have put it on twitter...even if there are thousands of heterosexual men that were thinking the same thing.
     
  13. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Not defending what Jones said (since he is apparently an idiot as FFG says) but this would be a huge stretch to say it was workplace harassment. It was twitter. Sam is a prospective member of the NFL. It's not even close.
     
  14. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    It does not need to be in the workplace. If you say something out of the workplace, you are still responsible for it. Which is why most people shouldn't make their social media visible to co-workers.

    The "same employer" thing is a tricky issue. Technically the Rams are responsible for ensuring Michael Sam isn't harassed. They have to do everything within their power to prevent it. If the Dolphins were to play the Rams, could STL request that Don Jones not go into the stadium? If an outside contractor harasses my employee, I'm obligated to do everything to stop that contractor.

    But either way, if there is a gay player currently on the Dolphins (which there most likely is), Jones' statements could be harassing toward him. This isn't an issue of Don Jones necessarily insulting Michael Sam. It is about Don Jones' comments making it uncomfortable for any gay co-worker. Further, if Michael Sam ever ends up on the same team as Don Jones, it is very problematic.
     
  15. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    But at the point Jones said what he did, Sam was granted basically a 2nd interview. Or actually, he'd been offered a contract.

    What happens in the future with Sam gainfully employed by whatever company, is a separate matter.
     
  16. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Since when can you kiss in the workplace
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  17. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    True, didn't think of that. If two people of whatever orientation are eating cake off each others faces, it'd be a stretch to label any reaction to that as harassment in the workplace.
     
  18. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Let me ask you this. I assume you are straight. Was that a choice? When did you choose to be straight? You didn't choose, right? It was just in your DNA and was natural for you. Why would being gay be any different? If your natural attraction is only toward women, it would wrong for anyone to try to force you to change. If someone else's natural attraction is toward men, it would be just as wrong to try and force them to change. Most of the homophobes use the Christian bible as the basis for their stance that to be homosexual is wrong, it's an abomination, blah blah blah. That ancient text, written by Bronze Age goat herders also says eating shrimp is an abomination and that it is just fine to own slaves. How much credence do we want to lend any religious text that supports the owning of slaves? Why is natural feelings of love between two people who happen to be of the same sex an abomination, but owning slaves is not an abomination?
     
  19. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    And homosexuality is not a choice either. They are born that way.
     
  20. BicketyBam

    BicketyBam No Fist Pumps Allowed

    4,022
    1,879
    113
    Sep 6, 2010
    New Milford, CT



    You never miss a chance to slam Christianity!
     
  21. I have a theory about the source of homosexuality. In nature when their is a field of flowers and they are all one sex, some of them morph into the opposite sex and its believed to be a survival mechanism. I think as humans begin to over populate mother nature is trying to self correct the population boom by making humans who do not reproduce.
     
    gunn34 likes this.
  22. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I saw a scientific study that there is a gene that increases the sex drive of males and females. One of the byproducts of that gene is the fact that it does cause some of the offspring to be homosexual.

    It stays around because the other offspring more than makes up for the lack of children of the gay offspring.

     
    shula_guy likes this.
  23. cdz12250

    cdz12250 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    10,265
    7,907
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Coconut Grove
    Actually, what he's slamming is hypocrisy, not Christianity. The New Testament supersedes the Old where they are inconsistent. Christ didn't say love your neighbor, except if he is gay.
     
    MrClean and Fin D like this.
  24. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    IMO much of the backlash is the result of the behavior you describe as "deplorable". Kind of a you reap what you sow thing. Even then I would say that the backlash is much more muted than the behavior that homosexuals were subjected to.
     
  25. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    The upshot is that almost all behavior is a combination of genetics and environment. There have been studies that found that gay men have more genes in common, but it's always a combination of genes and environmental factors. And there's never going to be one gene. That's what we learned from the human genome project. We have about the same number of genes as the fruitfly, but we're more complex (behaviorally and otherwise) b/c of how the genes work together. And we're decades or a century away from understanding how all our genes work together. But there is obviously a large genetic component. The bottom line is that homosexuality is not a choice so expressing disgust over that lifestyle is similar to expressing disgust over another race.
     
    cdz12250 likes this.
  26. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Kissing someone in your home is not sexual harassment, even if it is broadcast nationally.
     
  27. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Absolutely not. No disrespect, but you are way off base with your interpretation of workplace harassment.
     
  28. When you consider how far removed the bible is from god/jesus it is hard to say that its message has not been corrupted to some extent.

    The church chose which disciples to include and which ones to omit from the bible. They wrote and rewrote their interpretation of the disciples interpretations and than declared that as gospel.
     
    adamprez2003 likes this.
  29. Michael Sams resides at Radio City Music Hall Rockafeller Center NYC?
     
  30. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Looks like he was in his home? Either way, kissing someone anywhere is an act between two people, not directed at anyone else.
     
  31. Thats not entirely true but even if it were it has no relevance of whether its appropriate in a public setting.
     
  32. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    It is not harassing behavior.
     
  33. daphins

    daphins A-Style

    5,450
    2,632
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Naturally, but that doesn't make it right. People who have been persecuted should have empty and strive to rid the world of the persecution, not to subject their former persecutors to it. Otherwise we'll just go back and forth swaying with public opinion and forcing people into the closet.
     
  34. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    therefore it can't be workplace harrassment
     
  35. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    What you say about someone outside of the workplace can be workplace harassment.

    What you do in your home between yourself and your partner cannot be workplace harassment, unless it is directed at a third-party.
     
  36. Generally speaking thats true. I originally read your post wrong and did not realize it was specific to harassment. The site would not let me go back and edit it afterward so I let it ride.
     
  37. BicketyBam

    BicketyBam No Fist Pumps Allowed

    4,022
    1,879
    113
    Sep 6, 2010
    New Milford, CT



    Agree 1000%.
     
  38. Alex44

    Alex44 Boshosaurus Rex

    20,810
    8,965
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Hollywood, Florida
    Don't see how a kiss in ANY situation is harassment.

    This isn't directed at you Stringer, but honestly anyone who is offended by a kiss enough to show outrage and call it harassment is an idiot with mental issues that need to be taken care of in therapy of some sort. Not because they are anti-gay or whatever, but because they are an egomaniac who feels the need to control everything around them.
     
  39. I can see if a person was kissing someone in front of a 3rd party to mock that 3rd party, or make them jealous or whatever, that it could construed as harassment
     
  40. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Did I say anything that's not correct?

    I like your Christ. For the most part, I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.
     

Share This Page