Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

    Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
    WHOA WHOA WHOA Hold up.

    did Amachi make a big deal about this? or the ESPN publicity machine. Amachi booked himself on talkshows or interviews? no, ESPN's publicity would. just like actors who promote their movies, they go on to promote, which most studios / companies make actors and directors do. and authors are the same. do you think Amachi begged for the book to be released 2/14? please. that was ESPN.
    Amachi knew that it would be a big deal. Like if you build it they will come. He knew that it would get a lot of publicity. He didn't have to beg because he knew that ESPN would talk about it non stop. Amachi wrote the book because he knew it would get publicity.

    Amachi is a gay man in professional team sports. he is the first NBA player to actually come out. you know what, yes its a big story and ESPN recognized that. its a big story because he's the first and then people have to ask athletes how they would feel if 'a gay' were playing on their team. the only reason someone like tim hardaway gets asked his opinion is because Amachi is the first, its not like they're coming out of the closet left and right. its not like Amachi did this after someone else came out to capitalize cause he's gay too. why can't he tell his story? he deserves that as much as anybody who choses to write one. the problem is also the bigotry in professional sports that continues to put this story out there adn ESPN for both promoting it and maybe provoking it. if it wasn't a big deal no one would care. but players who are asked how they feel talk about "not bringing their gayness on me" (paraphrased from Randolph in PHILLY) and lebron talks about that teammate not being trustworthy. a gay player is going to hide it BECAUSE of people like tim hardaway so why would he make that known publicly?
    Yeah yeah sure he is the first gay guy to come out but I don't think it is a big story because I don't care. He isn't hurting anybody and like I said before I may not agree with it but there are a lot of things I don't agree with. I don't see it as a story but at the same time it is and there are two reasons why, one is the Tim Hardaways of the world and then two is the gay people themselves, they go along with making it a big deal.

    heres a big question: how is the hype around this truly any different from the tony/lovie black coaches storyline of the superbowl? the only difference is that hatred of homosexuality is still an acceptable form of bigotry. a black coach winning the superbowl was historic but a basketball player coming out is just for headlines? would this be different if Amachi had a long NBA career? what if instead tim hardaway came out and said he was gay? what if it was a current NBA player? would it matter if it was david harrison or danny granger or jermaine o'neal and they wrote a book that was published by ESPN and on valentines day?
    I didn't really get what the big deal was with Tony/Lovie making the Superbowl. I know that they were the first ones, they proved that it could be done, but personally, they didn't have to prove it to me. I wasn't thinking before the Pats game "oh boy we can't win this coz Dungy is black." Race has nothing to do with coaching ability. But we are not talking about how being gay affected Amachi's playing ability, we are talking about how it affects the sports world in general.

    You are right, hating gays is acceptable in this country. I don't think it is right. At the same time I don't see the need for writting a book about being gay.

    This whole story is already getting a lot of publicity I don't see how this could be a much bigger story current player or not. Sure if it was a superstar I guess but this is already all people can talk about. Those are some good questions though. I can say this, I don't watch Jermaine because he is enagaged. If he was gay i'd still watch him. How would the majority of the world react? I don't know. Let me say this though, if Amachi wouldn't have made it a big deal it wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. You don't have to write a book, you don't have to do interviews. However I can understand that he wanted to make money but by doing that he makes it a much bigger deal than it is.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      It isn't a choice about who someone is attracted to. But it is a choice to act on that attraction.

      Hicks, I'm not suggesting anyone decides to be straight, but they decide to act on it.
      Then tell me this:

      Imagine you wake up tomorrow, and the roles were reversed.

      Suddenly 95% of the world is gay (for the sake of argument ignore the issue of procreation, etc.), that's how it has always been (and in this scenario you wake up knowing and accpeting this; you don't remember what it was like before), and the Bible wrote against being with someone from the opposite sex (in other words, being straight is a sin), and you yourself are still straight, would you choose to act gay to fit in, to do what the Bible says, and/or what peer pressure says? Or would you secretly remain straight while hoping a day would come where the majority of society accepted your lifestyle?

      Think hard about it. I don't believe any straight person would start sleeping with the same sex just to fit in with society if the roles were reversed.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

        I don't know Hicks.

        There's the whole thing about prison, and men having sex with each other just because thats the only option available.

        Situational Homosexuality

        Situational, or "emergency" homosexuality is commonly defined as sexual activity with partners of the same sex that occurs not as part of a gay life style, but because the participants happen to find themselves in a single-sex environment for a prolonged period.

        Some single-sex environments that frequently become venues for situational homosexuality include prisons, military bases, ships at sea, convents and monasteries, athletic teams on tour, and boarding schools and colleges. Situational homosexual behavior is so common in these venues that in some cases nicknames have been created for those who indulge in it; for example "rugger-buggers" on rugby teams, "jailhouse turnouts" in prisons, and "lugs" for "lesbians until (college) graduation."
        http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences...sexuality.html

        Some people just want to get off, and will take what they can get.

        DISCLAIMER: No, I'm not saying that all homosexual people are gay because of this. Just saying people do act homosexually just because that's all that's available.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Then tell me this:

          Imagine you wake up tomorrow, and the roles were reversed.

          Suddenly 95% of the world is gay (for the sake of argument ignore the issue of procreation, etc.), that's how it has always been (and in this scenario you wake up knowing and accpeting this; you don't remember what it was like before), and the Bible wrote against being with someone from the opposite sex (in other words, being straight is a sin), and you yourself are still straight, would you choose to act gay to fit in, to do what the Bible says, and/or what peer pressure says? Or would you secretly remain straight while hoping a day would come where the majority of society accepted your lifestyle?

          Think hard about it. I don't believe any straight person would start sleeping with the same sex just to fit in with society if the roles were reversed.
          I would take the bibles viewpoint and believe it okay. However, do to my own preference I would just abstain from sex altogether. People can you know.

          However the bible does condemn homosexuality and the gay lifestyle, and for me that makes it wrong.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

            Most all human traits, especially behaviorial ones, are controlled by MULTIPLE genes simultaneously. For example there are at least half a dozen genes that are each linked to depression. Same story for Parkinsonism, anxiety dosorders, obesity, etc.

            Besides the gene being present, it also has to be actively transcribed to elicit an effect. Dormant "bad" genes cause no harm. The process by which genes can be activated is complex, but environmental factors such as exposure to viruses, certain bacterial infections, and other environmental stresses can activate them.

            Thus you can see why even genetic clones may have different genes activated and thus different traits. If you know any twins, you may have recognized that they have different personalities. That is very common. But personality traits also have a genetic component. People do "inherent my Dad's temper".

            If you have a twin and are separated at birth, and if your twin is gay as an adult, there is a high probability (though not a certainty) that you will also be gay. Not 100% of the time, but about 50% if I recall correctly vs. 2-5%among non-twins. So there is no "genetic controller" but there are genetic predispositions.

            The studies I'm talking about:

            Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

            52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

            22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual

            11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

            J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, ?A genetic study of male sexual orientation,? Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.

            Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters

            48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)

            16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual

            6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

            Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), ?Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,? American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.





            Now you can say 50% is no big deal and proves that genetics are not huge factor.

            Let's say you have a 2% chance of suffering a debilitating stroke in your lifetime. Let's say that a study showed that if both of your parents have had a major stroke then there is a 50% chance you will also have a major stroke (I know of no studies that say this, but I want to use this hypothetical). If I were your doctor I would warn you that your genetic makeup makes it 25 times more likely than the general population that you would have a stroke. I would point out that there is a genetic component to this condition. That does not mean that you are a ticking time bomb and your fate is determined. You may be lucky and few of your multiple "stroke genes" are activated.

            This is precisely what people mean when they talk about depression genes, Parkinson's genes, gay genes, obesity genes, 3-point shooting genes, etc. It does not mean 100% certainty of developing a trait, but it means an increased chance.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              It wasn't meant to prove that both should be homosexual. It was meant to prove that "they just don't know" why one is and one isn't.


              Obviously, considering why I bolded the two statements that I did.

              Your link doesn't say it's 100% genetics, now does it? It's more of a paper about the oppression of homosexuals, and why it's wrong. It actually uses the experiment that I already posted as it's evidence, and doesn't present any of it's own, just opinion.

              Hicks said it's genetics, and I'm saying that isn't correct, because it hasn't/can't be proven.
              I should clarify that I am well aware of the lack of evidence proving a biological basis for homosexuality. My intial reponse to your post was to counter your claim that IF it is gentic, then identical twins with one homosexual brother should ALWAYS have another which your own article disproves. Identical twins are not 100% identical.
              I would have to agree with Putnam that what we are doing here is basicly a moral arguement. No one is arguing against the individual liberty or freedom of speech of homosexuals or Tim Hardaway but our history as well as the histories of others show us that moral debates about hatred for hatreds sake are just as important as those involving our personal freedoms, although most times much harder to understand or resolve.
              But there is no doubt in my mind that the moral issue is directly linked to our personal freedoms. Most times unfounded hatred leads to crimes against our individual libertys and freedom of speech. We've seen this over and over again throughout our past. That is why I believe it is important to speak out against this type of hatred wether he has the right to speak it or not. It's just wrong. We should know better because we've seen it before.
              I respect everyones opinion on this thread and I thank you for letting me share mine.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                I think the most telling part of this story is that after a half-century of professional basketball, gay players have never once "come out" until a retired player did it in 2007.

                It's not 'decency' that keeps gay people in the closet. It's fear.

                We can all choose to participate in that culture of fear or not.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                  Originally posted by rommie View Post
                  Amachi knew that it would be a big deal. Like if you build it they will come. He knew that it would get a lot of publicity. He didn't have to beg because he knew that ESPN would talk about it non stop. Amachi wrote the book because he knew it would get publicity.
                  well yes. of course. but this isn't like artest or TO pulling some stunt to attract attention. it isn't like amachi said "if i said i was gay, i could make a ton of money." yes he has a story that is newsworthy thats what i was saying. but the reason it has become such a major deal is ESPN's hype not Amachi's. should he not tell his story because its going to be a big deal?

                  Yeah yeah sure he is the first gay guy to come out but I don't think it is a big story because I don't care. He isn't hurting anybody and like I said before I may not agree with it but there are a lot of things I don't agree with. I don't see it as a story but at the same time it is and there are two reasons why, one is the Tim Hardaways of the world and then two is the gay people themselves, they go along with making it a big deal.
                  well what about people who fought for equality and civil rights in the 60s and earlier? they were making a big deal out of race. you make a big deal so that homosexuals can be treated equally. its not like race isn't still being brought up at every turn. JO talked about how the new NBA dress code was racist against NBA players, should he have not said what he believed? people are of the opinion that athletes can't be gay john amachi is an example counter to that. think of all the people who have told stories of racial discrimination throughout their lives, and bigotry they've faced. should they just be told not to make a big deal about it?

                  I didn't really get what the big deal was with Tony/Lovie making the Superbowl. I know that they were the first ones, they proved that it could be done, but personally, they didn't have to prove it to me. I wasn't thinking before the Pats game "oh boy we can't win this coz Dungy is black." Race has nothing to do with coaching ability. But we are not talking about how being gay affected Amachi's playing ability, we are talking about how it affects the sports world in general.
                  well right, but for many years, owners believed that a black man couldn't coach a team to win, ask tony dungy if it was a big deal to be the first coach in 2007 to win a superbowl and NOT be white. ask tony how many years and how many times he was passed over for a job because of his skin color. just don't ask him to write it down and sell it because then he'd be making a big deal out of it.

                  You are right, hating gays is acceptable in this country. I don't think it is right. At the same time I don't see the need for writting a book about being gay.

                  This whole story is already getting a lot of publicity I don't see how this could be a much bigger story current player or not. Sure if it was a superstar I guess but this is already all people can talk about. Those are some good questions though. I can say this, I don't watch Jermaine because he is enagaged. If he was gay i'd still watch him. How would the majority of the world react? I don't know. Let me say this though, if Amachi wouldn't have made it a big deal it wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. You don't have to write a book, you don't have to do interviews. However I can understand that he wanted to make money but by doing that he makes it a much bigger deal than it is.
                  the reason i asked these questions was because people have been saying he only did this because it would create headlines. they devalue his personal experience and story. they say "well he barely played in the NBA" so that justifies thinking the story is stupid. so if it was jermaine instead or tim hardaway would that change people's reactions (as they said amachi was doing this because of his failed basketball career). i don't think it would have because ultimately its about bigotry and prejudice, and as hardaway said even if it was jordan, the team would have asked for management to trade him. so his not having been a star in the NBA has nothing to do with it.

                  im glad sexual preference and skin color have nothing to do with your enjoyment of professional sports. its just sad that we actually have to articulate that type of belief.
                  This is the darkest timeline.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    I would take the bibles viewpoint and believe it okay. However, do to my own preference I would just abstain from sex altogether. People can you know.

                    However the bible does condemn homosexuality and the gay lifestyle, and for me that makes it wrong.
                    it also promotes slavery. is that something you have to abstain from too?
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                      Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                      it also promotes slavery. is that something you have to abstain from too?
                      Hey, man, you don't have to belittle the guy. He's just making a statement.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                        It's not 'decency' that keeps gay people in the closet. It's fear.

                        We can all choose to participate in that culture of fear or not.

                        Los Angeles, thanks for this post, which confirms my earlier one. We all CAN choose to participate in that culture of fear (and hate) or not.

                        But I've got a question for you. Is it also possible that sometimes discretion and privacy lead to keeping quiet, too?

                        I've had a whole lot of really good sex in the past 21 years, and I've never talked about it with anyone except my wife. If I were homosexual, I think I would still feel the same about the propriety of privacy as I do now.
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                          I would take the bibles viewpoint and believe it okay. However, do to my own preference I would just abstain from sex altogether. People can you know.

                          However the bible does condemn homosexuality and the gay lifestyle, and for me that makes it wrong.
                          QFT.

                          At the end of the day, just about every religion known to man frowns upon homosexuality. If god really intended for gay's and lesbians to interact with one another physically, the anatomy of human beings would be different.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                            WHOA WHOA WHOA Hold up.

                            did Amachi make a big deal about this? or the ESPN publicity machine. Amachi booked himself on talkshows or interviews? no, ESPN's publicity would. just like actors who promote their movies, they go on to promote, which most studios / companies make actors and directors do. and authors are the same. do you think Amachi begged for the book to be released 2/14? please. that was ESPN.

                            Amachi is a gay man in professional team sports. he is the first NBA player to actually come out. you know what, yes its a big story and ESPN recognized that. its a big story because he's the first and then people have to ask athletes how they would feel if 'a gay' were playing on their team. the only reason someone like tim hardaway gets asked his opinion is because Amachi is the first, its not like they're coming out of the closet left and right. its not like Amachi did this after someone else came out to capitalize cause he's gay too. why can't he tell his story? he deserves that as much as anybody who choses to write one. the problem is also the bigotry in professional sports that continues to put this story out there adn ESPN for both promoting it and maybe provoking it. if it wasn't a big deal no one would care. but players who are asked how they feel talk about "not bringing their gayness on me" (paraphrased from Randolph in PHILLY) and lebron talks about that teammate not being trustworthy. a gay player is going to hide it BECAUSE of people like tim hardaway so why would he make that known publicly?

                            heres a big question: how is the hype around this truly any different from the tony/lovie black coaches storyline of the superbowl? the only difference is that hatred of homosexuality is still an acceptable form of bigotry. a black coach winning the superbowl was historic but a basketball player coming out is just for headlines? would this be different if Amachi had a long NBA career? what if instead tim hardaway came out and said he was gay? what if it was a current NBA player? would it matter if it was david harrison or danny granger or jermaine o'neal and they wrote a book that was published by ESPN and on valentines day?
                            Exactly!
                            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                              I don't mean to get off topic, but this isn't right.


                              Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                              (The Bible) also promotes slavery. is that something you have to abstain from too?
                              Nope. The Bible does not promote slavery.

                              Slavery is a human institution that existed before God called Abraham. The Bible acknowledges that slavery exists in a sinful world. That is not promoting it.

                              The Bible contains passages that empowered certain western nations to put an end to slavery, which had never happened anywhere else in the non-Christian parts of the world. Read William Wilberforce and William Lloyd Garrison (England's and America's leading abolitionists) and see where their inspiration came from.
                              And I won't be here to see the day
                              It all dries up and blows away
                              I'd hang around just to see
                              But they never had much use for me
                              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Hardaway's Comments on Homosexuality

                                Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                                it also promotes slavery. is that something you have to abstain from too?
                                Both the Old and New Testaments condemn, without equivocation, the practice of man stealing. Indeed, it’s a capital offense in the old testament, not only to steal a man, but to be in possession:
                                EX 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

                                There is a huge difference between indentured servitude and snatching slaves up out of Africa. Please don't spew garbage around.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X