The Miami Dolphins are inept collectively at Social Media

Was it ever determined based on the time of the tweet if Jones comments were about the initial hug and kiss, or about the later cake smearing and licking?

 

I think his comments were race related.

 

There's nothing in what you quoted or in the remainder of the article that says anything specific at all. There's the guys name and that's it. There is no mention of the organization that produced the study, no link to the results of the study, no paper the study was published in, and no mention of any specific position he's ever held or credentials he has to even run a study.

I'm not busting your chops, I'm simply telling you there's no info that makes this article legitimate and before you go using it to support your anti gay world view you may want to bring verifiable information instead this drivel.

 

Yeah, you're argument free and agree with everyone. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

Don't know why your panties are in a wad over an article I posted. If you want the guys credentials look it up. I don't see how the article supports any anti gay world view anyway. Its a study. I never said it was the study of all studies. Its more information out there to consider. If you want to be pig headed and refuse to look at it thats your choice but stop being a douche about it.

 

Im not sure but I dont think so.

 

How so? Because Sams bf is a white guy? Thats an avenue we haven't explored yet.

 

You're missing the point. the "study" you're posting is not a "study." It's simply called that. The fact that the study hasn't been peer reviewed for publishing makes it crap. Sorry, but in the world of actual science, that's the process that beings to establish credibility of any scientific work. What your posting is the equivalent of a "study" you would see referenced in an infomercial selling a diet pill. "Research shows it's 10x more effective than not taking a pill!"

 

And your missing my point. I never said this was the end all be all of anything. The guy did his own study (or define it how you wish). You don't like it or agree with it. Wonderful! Mr. Clean was discussing the topic and I posted it and said I found it "interesting". It could be complete crap for all I know but it sparked my interest and I thought Id share. Everyone is free to do their own research and develop their own conclusions.

 

I guess there is an ever increasing number of people that believe we were put on this earth to find joy and full fulfillment and partake in what makes us happy as long as it's legal and doesn't hurt anyone else. That is what is being taught and we are heading in the right direction . All is proceeding according to schedule.

 

This thread delivers...

 

A non-peer reviewed "study" from a bias source is about as far as you can get from evidence or even something "interesting". It's basically nothing more than propaganda.

 

I'd go further and say it doesn't matter if its legal. Lots of laws are unjust and I encourage people to break laws that violate their rights (and don't hurt others).

 

He has a 'right to work'.
What he believes (religiously), while he is off the clock, is his own business. As long as he is not breaking any laws/rules, You can't discipline someone for their personal beliefs, unless he is expressing them at a team function or facility.
You don't enter employment and then automatically risk being fired if you share a belief on twitter that your employer doesn't like. That would be a slippery slope.

Thanks for the insight BPK, I agree completely with your original sentiment here and have changed my opinion on the suspension. ( I was defending Jones from a rights standpoint, even though I think it was an idiotic comment and idiotic decision to tweet it)

Jones tweet was directed towards Sam personally. So even though they play on different teams, they are co workers in the NFL. Technically this is workplace harassment. You can't make derogatory comments about co workers at work or away from work. It makes for a toxic work place. Never really considered that avenue, but it definitely qualifies.

 

Unfortunately for gay people they can't break the law by getting married.

what laws do you encourage people to break?

 

This is not about me. This is about you posting an article that you're trying to pass off as fact, when it gives zero supporting evidence. Its also about you saying there was supporting evidence/specifics when there isn't any.

Also, saying homosexuality is a choice is absolutely an anti-gay stance, especially from from a religious site, because then it can be treated as a correctable behavior.

 

Your not reading.. Never passed it off as fact. Id have to read all of his research and the research he used to draw his conclusion (looks like he based his study off of already existing research). Like I said, if you want to learn more look it all up. The article was just a preview if you will, I dont really care that much. We are wayyy off track as it is.

 

You absolutely implied it was fact. You said:

...then posted the article which agrees with everything else you said in that post.

Look, I am not giving you a hard time. You gave us an article form a biased source about a scientific study with no credentials, evidence, results or evidence it was a published study. The scientists' background is vague. All of that points to the article being bogus.

In the scientific community, all of those things need to be present before a study/research will be accepted. It is the single greatest aspect of science. In the future, if you want to bring science into a berate/argument/discussion then you need to ensure those things are available.

 

Stop being overly dramatic. He is not being obtuse at all. He offered up an alternative idea that being gay may be from a behavioral influence and that person is not genetically predisposed to their sexuality. Unless you can do some test at the time of birth and tell which babies will grow up straight and which ones will be gay, than you have no proof if its genetic or behavioral. What is the problem with discussing that?

 

can you show me a case where someone who does not work for an organization and has no employer/employee contract in place has successfully sued for worker harrassment? fact is sam was NOT an employee of the Rams or NFL at the time of Jones' tweet. Your argument is based on defining harrassment as an employee of a company, tweeting a vague statement open to interpretation of a prospective future employee who is not under contract at time of tweet. that is about the biggest stretch of this law i have ever heard of. This would be the equivalent of someone at Coca Cola tweeting about someone who interviewed at Sprite without naming them by name and by saying only OMG or Sick with no further elaboration

 

This is edging farther away from Dolphin related into Pofo ;p

 

If that were true, then being straight would be from a behavioral influence too.

 

Yes it could very well mean that

 

Im not saying it is a choice b iut t its possible to unknowingly make a choice or have one made for you without your consent.

 

The point of discussing whether homosexuality is a choice or not is for the purpose of saying whether its a behavior that can be chosen to participate in or not. If it is chosen, then it reinforces its a sin and homosexuals are choosing to sin and are therefore, "wrong". If its not chosen, then the anti gay argument gets weaker. Basically, is it something that can be helped or not.

In that context, unknowingly making a choice or a choice that is made for you is no different than having no choice at all.

When its all said and done, anyone saying its a choice has to rectify when they chose to be straight. They have to explain when they were attracted to both men and women, weighed the options and decided they would go with the opposite sex and then how they turned off their attraction to the same sex or still struggle with it to this day. If they can't do that, then sexuality wasn't a choice for them, which in turn means its not a choice for homosexuals either.

 

So basically your more concerned with winning a silly argument rather than answering the question of the root of homosexuality.

Some of us would like to understand why we are attracted to people. Its possible that its an environmental influence and if it it might also be possible to become gay or straight by choice. Women seem to switch back. N fort& easily enough

 

This is a thread about the social ramifications of homosexuality and anti-homosexuality. I was merely clarifying why you're getting pushback...but being a douche is a choice apparently.

 

in some states, it's still illegal to receive felatio from a woman. tell me that's not a law that gets broken thousands of times a day.

 

I don't need you to clarify anything. I am pointing out that the idea that homosexuality might be a choice is not homophobic. There is no need to instantly go into attack mode when someone suggests it.

Fact is that we still dont known if being gay is a gene or if its environmental. Until you can do a test at birth and tell me which babies are gay and which are not you cant prove what your trying to pass off as a fact.

The moral argument for being gay is that it hurts nobody and adults should be allowed to choose their lifestyle. People at free to be who they want.

 

Some if you really need to take a human sexuality course. This isn't an "either or" situation. Sexuality runs the gambit. For some it is a choice, others it isn't and yes there are genes that are specifically linked to homosexuality.

http://m.ibtimes.co.uk/gay-gene-discovery-suggests-sexual-orientation-not-choice-1436389

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

I didn't attack you. There was nothing in post 827 that merited your bs attitude in response.

There is considerably more evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. In fact there's no evidence that it isn't. The "study" that was mentioned by Okie a bit ago, is most likely not real...at least that's what we all should be assuming about a unnamed study, put on by an unnamed organization, that produced unspecific results and published no where then highlighted on an anti-homosexual web site.

Furthermore, theres the whole logic quotient of the argument that I've already illustrated...if homosexuality is a choice then its a choice for all of us, which would mean at some point we all where attracted to both sexes and chose to be gay or straight.

 

I dont feel attacked by anyone. It seemed like others were trying to label okie as a homophobe based on the article he posted. That is what I responded too. I dont know if okie is a homophobe or not but im not going to assume he is over that article.

 

Not if you're married it doesnt.

 

It's still illegal if you are married, but the compliance rate among married women is extremly high.

 

Saying it may be affected by environmental factors and not purely genetics does not make it a "choice." There are a lot of physiological and psychological effects and issues that are not genetic (or not entirely genetic), but are not something one chooses.

 

There has to be a genetic component. For every environmental influence that "turned" someone gay that same influence didn't turn someone else gay.

Not everyone that works out will look like a prize bodybuilder. There are genetic reasons that environmental influence can turn some people into muscle bound freaks and others not. Its most likely the same with homosexuality. There is a genetic predisposition to being attracted to the same sex and its that attraction that makes someone homosexual.

 

I totally agree with you, but Fineas is also correct IMO in that even IF there is an environmental component involved in determining whether someone is gay, it's still not a choice. The main argument put forth by homophobes seems to be that there is a conscious choice involved.