Author Topic: Colin Kaepernick  (Read 7431 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23542
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #105 on: September 06, 2016, 04:00:40 PM »
So there's no dialog now?
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 35577
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #106 on: September 06, 2016, 04:18:43 PM »
I'd say no. On both sides. I think that AA need to take a breath when it involves police and not be aggressive and I would like to see police get more training for these tense situations.

There needs to be better dialog.  Listen, I'm on the police's side, it's to me is a few situations but it is growing so let's fix this.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23542
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #107 on: September 06, 2016, 04:25:06 PM »
I don't know. I'd be shocked if most major cities haven't had some sort of meeting on this. Maybe they haven't, but I'm pretty sure every mayor does not want to be the "next one".
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 35577
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #108 on: September 06, 2016, 04:47:49 PM »
Like I said, all people pulled as side need to stop being aggressive. It can only lead to bad things.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18661
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #109 on: September 06, 2016, 04:55:00 PM »
It's hard to promote a dialog when both parties are convinced the other wants to kill them.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 35577
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #110 on: September 06, 2016, 04:56:35 PM »
Well there has to be a start El Barto.  There has to be.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline TempusVox

  • Descendant of Primus
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5179
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #111 on: September 08, 2016, 10:10:03 PM »
I'm late to the dance, and only read the first page, so all apologies if this has been covered. But a lot of people, Kaepernick included, continue to miss the whole damn point, which is this: We don't stand for the song, or the flag really, or even the country...we stand out of respect for those (military and non military) who have sacrificed, fought for, and defended the freedoms against tyranny and oppression that the flag represents. It is for those who fight against the very things he claims to bitch about. So, when he, or anyone else doesn't stand, it's like a piss in the face to all of those who have strived for freedom and liberty. The flag is just a symbol. But we honor those who've fought, and sacrificed for what it represents.

I happen to think his cause and concerns are valid, but the actions of his protest are flawed. I blame shit like bike helmets, play dates, and white privilege. Never underestimate the power of stupid people and all...
You don't HAVE a soul.You ARE a soul.You HAVE a body.
"I came here to drink milk and kick ass; and I just finished my milk."

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3234
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #112 on: September 09, 2016, 04:32:28 AM »
I'm late to the dance, and only read the first page, so all apologies if this has been covered. But a lot of people, Kaepernick included, continue to miss the whole damn point, which is this: We don't stand for the song, or the flag really, or even the country...we stand out of respect for those (military and non military) who have sacrificed, fought for, and defended the freedoms against tyranny and oppression that the flag represents. It is for those who fight against the very things he claims to bitch about. So, when he, or anyone else doesn't stand, it's like a piss in the face to all of those who have strived for freedom and liberty. The flag is just a symbol. But we honor those who've fought, and sacrificed for what it represents.

I happen to think his cause and concerns are valid, but the actions of his protest are flawed. I blame shit like bike helmets, play dates, and white privilege. Never underestimate the power of stupid people and all...

First, I respect your opinion.  However, I was never told that standing for the Anthem was specifically to show respect for the Military.  That may be the belief of many, but it also is not the belief of many.
Second, I feel that the veterans fought for many things, including his right to do exactly what he is doing.  And many veterans have come out to support exactly that.  So no, I don't think some are missing the point....they merely have a different, and valid, viewpoint on the subject.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7479
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #113 on: September 09, 2016, 05:26:13 AM »
I wonder how many people actually stand at home when they play the national anthem on TV?
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16587
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #114 on: September 09, 2016, 05:43:27 AM »
I'm late to the dance, and only read the first page, so all apologies if this has been covered. But a lot of people, Kaepernick included, continue to miss the whole damn point, which is this: We don't stand for the song, or the flag really, or even the country...we stand out of respect for those (military and non military) who have sacrificed, fought for, and defended the freedoms against tyranny and oppression that the flag represents. It is for those who fight against the very things he claims to bitch about. So, when he, or anyone else doesn't stand, it's like a piss in the face to all of those who have strived for freedom and liberty. The flag is just a symbol. But we honor those who've fought, and sacrificed for what it represents.

I happen to think his cause and concerns are valid, but the actions of his protest are flawed. I blame shit like bike helmets, play dates, and white privilege. Never underestimate the power of stupid people and all...

I generally agree with everything you said. If he wants to stir up some kind of protest regarding his opinions, there are more tactful ways to handle it. People who do things like that just to prove a point are worse than those they are protesting against.

However, I don't think the media (gotta love them) needs to perpetuate this. Aren't there other things going on in this country that need more of a spotlight shone on them? If he wasn't some dopey athlete, and was just some regular Joe Schmoe, nobody would give a fuck.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25567
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #115 on: September 09, 2016, 06:12:03 AM »
Frankly, I am tired of hearing about this every time I turn on the TV to watch or hear about sports.  Save this for CNN and Fox News and let those of us who want to watch sports do so without the political crap.

Case in point: the Broncos linebacker Brandon Marshall knelt during the anthem last night and that was and is still one of the headlines on espn.com.  I'd love to know how that is SPORTS news.

Lastly, a buddy (whom I talk football with all the time) texted me during the game last night to bitch about Marshall doing it (he is squarely on the side of those who think it is wrong and disrespectful to not stand), and I basically told him, "People are offended too easily. Stand, don't stand. I don't care either way. I'm tired of hearing about this bull shit. Let's talk football without the drama."

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3234
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #116 on: September 09, 2016, 06:44:39 AM »
I wonder how many people actually stand at home when they play the national anthem on TV?

Lol, awesome point.  I bet almost no one does, including those who are the most offended by Kapernick.  I have NEVER seen anyone stand during the anthem when watching a sporting event on tv
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Tick

  • Cleavage is a drug! Dracula is a junkie
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9180
  • Gender: Male
  • We will, we will, Trump you, boom boom, clap!
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #117 on: September 09, 2016, 06:58:28 AM »
As we approach the opening Sunday of football season which also happens to be the 15th anniversary of 9-11 the anthem protest this weekend will be very sensitive, especially if someone is choosing to exercise there "right" to protest at the Jets game in NYC. Kapaernick is not the only player now taking a knee during the national anthem.

Forgive me if this has been said, but the real question and my big issue with all of it is this...
In America we have the right to protest, YES.... but does that right extend to the workplace when your employer does not want you to do it? Its not his right if his employer says that is against our protocol is it? They pay him, its not his time its theirs, he's on there clock, no?

Your job is not your place to have a platform for your own personal feelings and agenda. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
But hey, he can forfeit his salary and go take a knee in some park if he's hears the anthem playing. That's his right.
I can protest something when its my time, but when I'm representing the company I work for I have to play my there rules because they pay me.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 07:16:50 AM by Tick »
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3234
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #118 on: September 09, 2016, 07:17:03 AM »
As we approach the opening Sunday of football season which also happens to be the 15th anniversary of 9-11 the anthem protest this weekend will be very sensitive, especially if someone is choosing to exercise there "right" to protest at the Jets game in NYC. Kapaernick is not the only player now taking a knee during the national anthem.

Forgive if this has been said, but the real question and my big issue with all of it is this...
In America we have the right to protest, YES.... but does that right extend to the workplace when your employer does not want you to do it? Its not his right if his employer says that is against our protocol is it? They pay him, its not his time its theirs, he's on there clock, no?

Your job is not your place to have a platform for your own personal feelings and agenda. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
But hey, he can forfeit his salary and go take a knee in some park if he's hears the anthem playing. That's his right.
I can protest something when its my time, but when I'm representing the company I work for I have to play my there rules because they pay me.

No that isn't the real question.  There is no issue with his right to do what he is doing, and no issue with the company's right to, or not, terminate him.
They haven't fired him, so his behavior, so far, is acceptable with them.  One must also take into account that there is a contract in play, and that can affect how the employee and employer act. (perhaps union employees striking is an appropriate example). The company does not own you when you are "on the clock".  From my understanding, Your freedom of speech guarantees you wont be prosecuted...it doesn't guarantee you wont be fired.  So each situation is different.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Tick

  • Cleavage is a drug! Dracula is a junkie
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9180
  • Gender: Male
  • We will, we will, Trump you, boom boom, clap!
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #119 on: September 09, 2016, 07:22:02 AM »
As we approach the opening Sunday of football season which also happens to be the 15th anniversary of 9-11 the anthem protest this weekend will be very sensitive, especially if someone is choosing to exercise there "right" to protest at the Jets game in NYC. Kapaernick is not the only player now taking a knee during the national anthem.

Forgive if this has been said, but the real question and my big issue with all of it is this...
In America we have the right to protest, YES.... but does that right extend to the workplace when your employer does not want you to do it? Its not his right if his employer says that is against our protocol is it? They pay him, its not his time its theirs, he's on there clock, no?

Your job is not your place to have a platform for your own personal feelings and agenda. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
But hey, he can forfeit his salary and go take a knee in some park if he's hears the anthem playing. That's his right.
I can protest something when its my time, but when I'm representing the company I work for I have to play my there rules because they pay me.

No that isn't the real question.  There is no issue with his right to do what he is doing, and no issue with the company's right to, or not, terminate him.
They haven't fired him, so his behavior, so far, is acceptable with them.  One must also take into account that there is a contract in play, and that can affect how the employee and employer act.
I believe the 49ers said they don't like it but they recognize its his right to protest. I don't think it is his right while working. I think its up to the organization to say if it is or isn't acceptable. Then its his choice to make a move. I think the 49ers and football overall need to clarify what is or is not acceptable and they have not done that yet. If they do, it won't be his "right" any longer unless he chooses to quit.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #120 on: September 09, 2016, 07:28:30 AM »
As we approach the opening Sunday of football season which also happens to be the 15th anniversary of 9-11 the anthem protest this weekend will be very sensitive, especially if someone is choosing to exercise there "right" to protest at the Jets game in NYC. Kapaernick is not the only player now taking a knee during the national anthem.

Forgive if this has been said, but the real question and my big issue with all of it is this...
In America we have the right to protest, YES.... but does that right extend to the workplace when your employer does not want you to do it? Its not his right if his employer says that is against our protocol is it? They pay him, its not his time its theirs, he's on there clock, no?

Your job is not your place to have a platform for your own personal feelings and agenda. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
But hey, he can forfeit his salary and go take a knee in some park if he's hears the anthem playing. That's his right.
I can protest something when its my time, but when I'm representing the company I work for I have to play my there rules because they pay me.

No that isn't the real question.  There is no issue with his right to do what he is doing, and no issue with the company's right to, or not, terminate him.
They haven't fired him, so his behavior, so far, is acceptable with them.  One must also take into account that there is a contract in play, and that can affect how the employee and employer act.
I believe the 49ers said they don't like it but they recognize its his right to protest. I don't think it is his right while working. I think its up to the organization to say if it is or isn't acceptable. Then its his choice to make a move. I think the 49ers and football overall need to clarify what is or is not acceptable and they have not done that yet. If they do, it won't be his "right" any longer unless he chooses to quit.

Seeing as the NFL lets the guys who beat the shit out of their wives on camera come back after a two game suspension, I like to think they don't have much of a problem with this. Also, this guy's jersey is now the third most sold so far this year.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #121 on: September 09, 2016, 07:31:37 AM »
I believe the 49ers said they don't like it but they recognize its his right to protest. I don't think it is his right while working. I think its up to the organization to say if it is or isn't acceptable. Then its his choice to make a move. I think the 49ers and football overall need to clarify what is or is not acceptable and they have not done that yet. If they do, it won't be his "right" any longer unless he chooses to quit.

The 49ers have no obligation, other than public relations and good will, to honor Colin's free speech rights.  That is a protection from the GOVERNMENT.   If they wanted to, they could cut him tomorrow for any reason, including that one.   They would probably have to pay to do it but still.   

Look, this is one of those cases where I don't think it's black and white.    I don't think it serves the 49ers to cut him.  I do think, though, that in a year or two, when there is a QB battle and they need to make a decision, this will be in there, even if subconsciously.   If he realizes that, and is willing to make that sacrifice, then good for him (my cynicism says that most of these kids don't realize the impacts of what they do in our real-time, social media world; I'd love for one of them to make the sacrifice that, say, Muhammad Ali did in '67.  THAT'S protest.). 

Offline Tick

  • Cleavage is a drug! Dracula is a junkie
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9180
  • Gender: Male
  • We will, we will, Trump you, boom boom, clap!
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #122 on: September 09, 2016, 07:42:11 AM »
As we approach the opening Sunday of football season which also happens to be the 15th anniversary of 9-11 the anthem protest this weekend will be very sensitive, especially if someone is choosing to exercise there "right" to protest at the Jets game in NYC. Kapaernick is not the only player now taking a knee during the national anthem.

Forgive if this has been said, but the real question and my big issue with all of it is this...
In America we have the right to protest, YES.... but does that right extend to the workplace when your employer does not want you to do it? Its not his right if his employer says that is against our protocol is it? They pay him, its not his time its theirs, he's on there clock, no?

Your job is not your place to have a platform for your own personal feelings and agenda. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
But hey, he can forfeit his salary and go take a knee in some park if he's hears the anthem playing. That's his right.
I can protest something when its my time, but when I'm representing the company I work for I have to play my there rules because they pay me.

No that isn't the real question.  There is no issue with his right to do what he is doing, and no issue with the company's right to, or not, terminate him.
They haven't fired him, so his behavior, so far, is acceptable with them.  One must also take into account that there is a contract in play, and that can affect how the employee and employer act.
I believe the 49ers said they don't like it but they recognize its his right to protest. I don't think it is his right while working. I think its up to the organization to say if it is or isn't acceptable. Then its his choice to make a move. I think the 49ers and football overall need to clarify what is or is not acceptable and they have not done that yet. If they do, it won't be his "right" any longer unless he chooses to quit.

Seeing as the NFL lets the guys who beat the shit out of their wives on camera come back after a two game suspension, I like to think they don't have much of a problem with this. Also, this guy's jersey is now the third most sold so far this year.
I get that but its not the point I'm making. My point is its NOT his right to protest on his job unless they allow him to. If they say no, he does not have the right.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3234
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #123 on: September 09, 2016, 07:42:58 AM »
As we approach the opening Sunday of football season which also happens to be the 15th anniversary of 9-11 the anthem protest this weekend will be very sensitive, especially if someone is choosing to exercise there "right" to protest at the Jets game in NYC. Kapaernick is not the only player now taking a knee during the national anthem.

Forgive if this has been said, but the real question and my big issue with all of it is this...
In America we have the right to protest, YES.... but does that right extend to the workplace when your employer does not want you to do it? Its not his right if his employer says that is against our protocol is it? They pay him, its not his time its theirs, he's on there clock, no?

Your job is not your place to have a platform for your own personal feelings and agenda. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
But hey, he can forfeit his salary and go take a knee in some park if he's hears the anthem playing. That's his right.
I can protest something when its my time, but when I'm representing the company I work for I have to play my there rules because they pay me.

No that isn't the real question.  There is no issue with his right to do what he is doing, and no issue with the company's right to, or not, terminate him.
They haven't fired him, so his behavior, so far, is acceptable with them.  One must also take into account that there is a contract in play, and that can affect how the employee and employer act.
I believe the 49ers said they don't like it but they recognize its his right to protest. I don't think it is his right while working. I think its up to the organization to say if it is or isn't acceptable. Then its his choice to make a move. I think the 49ers and football overall need to clarify what is or is not acceptable and they have not done that yet. If they do, it won't be his "right" any longer unless he chooses to quit.

I think you are completely missing the point, as others here have also pointed out.  It IS his right to do what he is doing, and not be prosecuted.  It is also the teams right to fire him if they want to for his behavior.  They haven't fired him, so this is not the problem, or the real issue.

People are upset that he is not showing what they deem as proper respect.  But as pointed out earlier, I find it telling that almost every one screaming disrespect, isnt standing during the anthem when they watch it on tv.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3234
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #124 on: September 09, 2016, 07:44:03 AM »
As we approach the opening Sunday of football season which also happens to be the 15th anniversary of 9-11 the anthem protest this weekend will be very sensitive, especially if someone is choosing to exercise there "right" to protest at the Jets game in NYC. Kapaernick is not the only player now taking a knee during the national anthem.

Forgive if this has been said, but the real question and my big issue with all of it is this...
In America we have the right to protest, YES.... but does that right extend to the workplace when your employer does not want you to do it? Its not his right if his employer says that is against our protocol is it? They pay him, its not his time its theirs, he's on there clock, no?

Your job is not your place to have a platform for your own personal feelings and agenda. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
But hey, he can forfeit his salary and go take a knee in some park if he's hears the anthem playing. That's his right.
I can protest something when its my time, but when I'm representing the company I work for I have to play my there rules because they pay me.

No that isn't the real question.  There is no issue with his right to do what he is doing, and no issue with the company's right to, or not, terminate him.
They haven't fired him, so his behavior, so far, is acceptable with them.  One must also take into account that there is a contract in play, and that can affect how the employee and employer act.
I believe the 49ers said they don't like it but they recognize its his right to protest. I don't think it is his right while working. I think its up to the organization to say if it is or isn't acceptable. Then its his choice to make a move. I think the 49ers and football overall need to clarify what is or is not acceptable and they have not done that yet. If they do, it won't be his "right" any longer unless he chooses to quit.

Seeing as the NFL lets the guys who beat the shit out of their wives on camera come back after a two game suspension, I like to think they don't have much of a problem with this. Also, this guy's jersey is now the third most sold so far this year.
I get that but its not the point I'm making. My point is its NOT his right to protest on his job unless they allow him to. If they say no, he does not have the right.

No Tick, you are wrong.  He doesn't lose his rights when he is on the clock.  He 100% has the right to do it, even while on the job.  And the company has the right to fire him.  See the difference?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #125 on: September 09, 2016, 07:48:42 AM »
As we approach the opening Sunday of football season which also happens to be the 15th anniversary of 9-11 the anthem protest this weekend will be very sensitive, especially if someone is choosing to exercise there "right" to protest at the Jets game in NYC. Kapaernick is not the only player now taking a knee during the national anthem.

Forgive if this has been said, but the real question and my big issue with all of it is this...
In America we have the right to protest, YES.... but does that right extend to the workplace when your employer does not want you to do it? Its not his right if his employer says that is against our protocol is it? They pay him, its not his time its theirs, he's on there clock, no?

Your job is not your place to have a platform for your own personal feelings and agenda. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
But hey, he can forfeit his salary and go take a knee in some park if he's hears the anthem playing. That's his right.
I can protest something when its my time, but when I'm representing the company I work for I have to play my there rules because they pay me.

No that isn't the real question.  There is no issue with his right to do what he is doing, and no issue with the company's right to, or not, terminate him.
They haven't fired him, so his behavior, so far, is acceptable with them.  One must also take into account that there is a contract in play, and that can affect how the employee and employer act.
I believe the 49ers said they don't like it but they recognize its his right to protest. I don't think it is his right while working. I think its up to the organization to say if it is or isn't acceptable. Then its his choice to make a move. I think the 49ers and football overall need to clarify what is or is not acceptable and they have not done that yet. If they do, it won't be his "right" any longer unless he chooses to quit.

Seeing as the NFL lets the guys who beat the shit out of their wives on camera come back after a two game suspension, I like to think they don't have much of a problem with this. Also, this guy's jersey is now the third most sold so far this year.
I get that but its not the point I'm making. My point is its NOT his right to protest on his job unless they allow him to. If they say no, he does not have the right.

His team hasn't sacked him yet for his actions. They are granting him the right to do so.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3234
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #126 on: September 09, 2016, 07:57:33 AM »
I think something needs to be made clear.  Perhaps it is just a misuse of the terms. 

He has the RIGHT to free speech.  That right does not go away when he is on the job.  It protects his speech from prosecution from the government.  He does NOT have the RIGHT to his JOB.  If his employer wants to fire him due to his protests, they can.  He does not lose his RIGHT to protest.  He merely has a CHOICE to make on whether he wants to exercise his RIGHT to protest, and possibly force his employer to exercise their RIGHT to fire him.

I hope this clears that up.  If I am not correct, please correct me.  It is clear to me that RIGHTS really aren't the issue here.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18661
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #127 on: September 09, 2016, 08:10:31 AM »
I doubt Kaep's contract obliges him to stand for the anthem. That's where I disagree with Tick. No, his contract probably doesn't explicitly state his right to protest, but it also doesn't compel him to show respect for a cause whether he agrees with it or not.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #128 on: September 09, 2016, 08:47:56 AM »
I wonder how many people actually stand at home when they play the national anthem on TV?

But why is that relevant?  That is not part of the custom.  Same thing if I am in a courtroom, for example.  If I am physically present, I am required to stand when the judge and/or jury enters the courtroom.  If I am watching court proceedings on TV from any location outside the courtroom, even if watching in real time, there is no expectation or requirement that I stand.  To use another example, if I am at a function where President Obama enters, I am expected to rise when he enters the room.  But if, for example, I am watching the State of the Union Address on TV, there is no expectation or requirement that I stand at home.  I certainly could stand if I so chose.  But not only would it not be expected, it would be...well, kinda weird.  :lol

I think something needs to be made clear.  Perhaps it is just a misuse of the terms. 

He has the RIGHT to free speech.  That right does not go away when he is on the job.  It protects his speech from prosecution from the government.  He does NOT have the RIGHT to his JOB.  If his employer wants to fire him due to his protests, they can.  He does not lose his RIGHT to protest.  He merely has a CHOICE to make on whether he wants to exercise his RIGHT to protest, and possibly force his employer to exercise their RIGHT to fire him.

I hope this clears that up.  If I am not correct, please correct me.  It is clear to me that RIGHTS really aren't the issue here.
You are correct, but I think Tick is as well, and the two of you are talking past one another.  Kaep at all times has that right vis--vis the government.  He does NOT have that right vis--vis his employer, which is what I think Tick is arguing, even though he has not said it in quite those terms.  For all practical purposes, you are still correct.  But you are parsing words where I don't think you need to because, really, Tick is correct as well.  Make sense?
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3234
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #129 on: September 09, 2016, 09:01:27 AM »
I wonder how many people actually stand at home when they play the national anthem on TV?

But why is that relevant?  That is not part of the custom.  Same thing if I am in a courtroom, for example.  If I am physically present, I am required to stand when the judge and/or jury enters the courtroom.  If I am watching court proceedings on TV from any location outside the courtroom, even if watching in real time, there is no expectation or requirement that I stand.  To use another example, if I am at a function where President Obama enters, I am expected to rise when he enters the room.  But if, for example, I am watching the State of the Union Address on TV, there is no expectation or requirement that I stand at home.  I certainly could stand if I so chose.  But not only would it not be expected, it would be...well, kinda weird.  :lol

I think something needs to be made clear.  Perhaps it is just a misuse of the terms. 

He has the RIGHT to free speech.  That right does not go away when he is on the job.  It protects his speech from prosecution from the government.  He does NOT have the RIGHT to his JOB.  If his employer wants to fire him due to his protests, they can.  He does not lose his RIGHT to protest.  He merely has a CHOICE to make on whether he wants to exercise his RIGHT to protest, and possibly force his employer to exercise their RIGHT to fire him.

I hope this clears that up.  If I am not correct, please correct me.  It is clear to me that RIGHTS really aren't the issue here.
You are correct, but I think Tick is as well, and the two of you are talking past one another.  Kaep at all times has that right vis--vis the government.  He does NOT have that right vis--vis his employer, which is what I think Tick is arguing, even though he has not said it in quite those terms.  For all practical purposes, you are still correct.  But you are parsing words where I don't think you need to because, really, Tick is correct as well.  Make sense?

Understood, except one thing.  Tick says his big problem, and the real question here, is that he has no right to do it while at work.  I am pretty sure no one has really been raising a point that he has a right and protection from being terminated from his job.  If his employer is OK with it and does not fire him, why would that be the "Real Question, and Big Issue"?  In fact that is not an issue or question at all.

And I think standing during the anthem on TV is relevant, and I think your analogy is faulty, as you are showing respect to a live person in your presence.  A recorded song is literally the same through a stadium speaker and a TV speaker.  If you are supposedly showing respect for the veterans during a song, how is where you hear the song relevant?

If the answer is "well that is the custom", then I think all this vitriol about this is BS and hypocritical.  The reason we don't stand every time we hear it is because we are lazy and really don't care about showing veterans respect as much as we say we do unless we are in a crowd and might be shamed for not standing with the mob
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 09:14:26 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #130 on: September 09, 2016, 09:13:52 AM »
And I think standing during the anthem on TV is relevant, and I think your analogy is faulty, as you are showing respect to a live person in your presence.  A recorded song is literally the same through a stadium speaker and a TV speaker.  If you are supposedly showing respect for the veterans during a song, how is where you hear the song relevant?
Because the flag is being raised at that location as part of the ceremony.  If I am there, I am part of that flag-raising ceremony, which the anthem, pre-recorded or not, is part of.  If I am not physically there, I am not part of the ceremony.  I suppose I could still take part in it from a remote location.  But again, that is not what is expected because I am not there and not part of it.  The anthem itself is not what you are paying respect to.  The anthem is part of the ceremony showing respect to the flag (or, more accurately, to what the flag stands for, obviously).  The song is simply a part of that ceremony.  Playing the song is a means of showing respect to the flag, as is standing for it.  You stand during the anthem, and in order to show respect to the flag.  You don't stand for the anthem in order to show respect for the anthem.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3234
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #131 on: September 09, 2016, 09:27:46 AM »
And I think standing during the anthem on TV is relevant, and I think your analogy is faulty, as you are showing respect to a live person in your presence.  A recorded song is literally the same through a stadium speaker and a TV speaker.  If you are supposedly showing respect for the veterans during a song, how is where you hear the song relevant?
Because the flag is being raised at that location as part of the ceremony.  If I am there, I am part of that flag-raising ceremony, which the anthem, pre-recorded or not, is part of.  If I am not physically there, I am not part of the ceremony.  I suppose I could still take part in it from a remote location.  But again, that is not what is expected because I am not there and not part of it.  The anthem itself is not what you are paying respect to.  The anthem is part of the ceremony showing respect to the flag (or, more accurately, to what the flag stands for, obviously).  The song is simply a part of that ceremony.  Playing the song is a means of showing respect to the flag, as is standing for it.  You stand during the anthem, and in order to show respect to the flag.  You don't stand for the anthem in order to show respect for the anthem.

Interesting that you (and perhaps society) draw an arbitrary line when showing respect for an anthem or flag.  One would think that the respect should be shown when you experience the ceremony for the flag regardless of how you experience it.  Are you not part of that experience if you are actively watching it, regardless if you are physically there or not?  Where is the line drawn?  Interesting how one is excused from showing respect and another isn't.  Why is Colin hated, yet the guy who specifically watches that event and ceremony from tv excused from showing respect to flag/country, and veterans.  Is he not actively and purposefully watching and listening to this specific event just like everybody else at the stadium?

He is.  We are all just lazy and don't show a fraction of the respect we should, and expect others to.
The values of a person tend to show up when no one is watching.  My grandfather stood when the anthem was played on tv.  I thought it was wierd too.  But he fought in a war....so he probably didnt see a distincvion like we do.  He thought the flag was the flag.  It didnt have to be in his presence physically to honor it.

Do I stand when I watch on TV?  Nope.  Do I think about the veterans every time the anthem plays at a sporting event?  Nope.  But i am also not condemning another for not showing what they feel is proper respect.  Lots of glass houses on this topic.


EDIT:  In short, I don't see the distinction, especially if one wants to judge another, but is obviously an established custom.  I personally feel it is an empty gesture for the majority of those practicing it.  My position on it is it is a right to not stand, and it is a right that those veterans fought for.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 09:50:47 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #132 on: September 09, 2016, 09:49:02 AM »
Well, no, no glass houses at all.  I'm not condemning him or anyone else.  He is present when the ceremony is taking place, so the expectation and obligation is that he will participate to at least the minimum degree.  Whether he should be excused from doing so out of his belief that he should be allowed to protest is open for debate.  (And while I lean toward the side of, if you are there, you should not be excused, and should protest in some other means at a..."more appropriate" time, I am still somewhat undecided and am not taking a firm position either way)

But it isn't an "arbitrary" line at all.  Whether I am "experiencing" the flag ceremony from afar is a very different thing than whether I am present for it and thus a part of it, just the same as the courtroom example I gave earlier.  It is very clear-cut.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3234
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #133 on: September 09, 2016, 09:59:00 AM »
Well, no, no glass houses at all.  I'm not condemning him or anyone else.  He is present when the ceremony is taking place, so the expectation and obligation is that he will participate to at least the minimum degree.  Whether he should be excused from doing so out of his belief that he should be allowed to protest is open for debate.  (And while I lean toward the side of, if you are there, you should not be excused, and should protest in some other means at a..."more appropriate" time, I am still somewhat undecided and am not taking a firm position either way)

But it isn't an "arbitrary" line at all.  Whether I am "experiencing" the flag ceremony from afar is a very different thing than whether I am present for it and thus a part of it, just the same as the courtroom example I gave earlier.  It is very clear-cut.

First, I meant many glass houses in general, not you specifically.  I meant that there are many that criticize Colin for not standing, when their show of respect is a hollow one.

Second, he is NOT obligated to do so.  Etiquette is not an obligation.  His right supercedes etiquette.  He does not need permission to do what he is doing, that is not up for a debate.  He may not have a choice to do it in that uniform however.

Third, I agree that the experience is different, but I have yet to see a reason why the line is drawn where it is.  The custom was formed and drafted before TV was even invented.  Not agreeing or disagreeing with the custom....I just find it interesting that whether watching an event live, or on TV, is the determining factor to show that respect. 

To expand on your analogy, and to expand on my point, what about conference calls?  I would assume that staff would stand or salute the President or Judge when on a conference call.  I am sure they would stand for the flag and anthem when watching remotely on a conference call.  Seems to me that the custom is more about who can see you than it is about respect.  Respect should be shown regardless of where you are or who can see you.  That is what my grandfather did.  I guess he is a better man than I in some ways.  He was an alcoholic that abused his family.  So I guess I am better in other ways :)
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 10:10:18 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #134 on: September 09, 2016, 10:00:52 AM »
I wonder how many people actually stand at home when they play the national anthem on TV?

But why is that relevant?  That is not part of the custom.  Same thing if I am in a courtroom, for example.  If I am physically present, I am required to stand when the judge and/or jury enters the courtroom.  If I am watching court proceedings on TV from any location outside the courtroom, even if watching in real time, there is no expectation or requirement that I stand.  To use another example, if I am at a function where President Obama enters, I am expected to rise when he enters the room.  But if, for example, I am watching the State of the Union Address on TV, there is no expectation or requirement that I stand at home.  I certainly could stand if I so chose.  But not only would it not be expected, it would be...well, kinda weird.  :lol

I think something needs to be made clear.  Perhaps it is just a misuse of the terms. 

He has the RIGHT to free speech.  That right does not go away when he is on the job.  It protects his speech from prosecution from the government.  He does NOT have the RIGHT to his JOB.  If his employer wants to fire him due to his protests, they can.  He does not lose his RIGHT to protest.  He merely has a CHOICE to make on whether he wants to exercise his RIGHT to protest, and possibly force his employer to exercise their RIGHT to fire him.

I hope this clears that up.  If I am not correct, please correct me.  It is clear to me that RIGHTS really aren't the issue here.
You are correct, but I think Tick is as well, and the two of you are talking past one another.  Kaep at all times has that right vis--vis the government.  He does NOT have that right vis--vis his employer, which is what I think Tick is arguing, even though he has not said it in quite those terms.  For all practical purposes, you are still correct.  But you are parsing words where I don't think you need to because, really, Tick is correct as well.  Make sense?


I think Bosk has said it all here.  Well done, sir.

(And for the record, my ex, nine years in the Air Force, and two of her friends, both career Air Force, almost always stand for the national anthem when they hear it being played before an event.  I don't disagree with calling it "out of the ordinary", but people DO do it.)

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3234
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #135 on: September 09, 2016, 10:13:51 AM »
Hypothetical Question for you Bosk:
From your posts, I gather you must be in the presence of the ceremony to be required to stand to show respect, and are not if you are experiencing it remotely.

Say you are home alone watching the 49ers game on TV, and the anthem comes on.  Do you stand?

What if there was also a live feed of you on the big screen at the stadium.  Do you stand then?


Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #136 on: September 09, 2016, 10:24:30 AM »
First, I meant many glass houses in general, not you specifically.  I meant that there are many that criticize Colin for not standing, when their show of respect is a hollow one.

Not seeing it.

Second, he is NOT obligated to do so.  Etiquette is not an obligation.  His right supercedes etiquette.  He does not need permission to do what he is doing, that is not up for a debate.  He may not have a choice to do it in that uniform however.

Well, no.  He absolutely IS obligated to do so.  Etiquette of this type absolutely IS an obligation.  The only question is whether he is excused from that obligation.  His right does not in any way supercede etiquette other than his right protecting him from the government punishing him for not observing said etiquette, and even that is a very limited right.  And whether he needs permission is solely up to his employer and whether they choose to require permission. 

Third, I agree that the experience is different, but I have yet to see a reason why the line is drawn where it is.  The custom was formed and drafted before TV was even invented.  Not agreeing or disagreeing with the custom....I just find it interesting that whether watching an event live, or on TV, is the determining factor to show that respect. 

There doesn't need to be a "reason" for the line to be drawn where it is.  One is either part of the ceremony or not.  In the vast majority of real-world contexts, this is crystal clear.

To expand on your analogy, and to expand on my point, what about conference calls?  I would assume that staff would stand or salute the President or Judge when on a conference call.  I am sure they would stand for the flag and anthem when watching remotely on a conference call.

Again, this doesn't really muddy the issue.  Technology has made it possible to be able to be "present" and be a "participant" in what is going on despite not being physically in proximity.  The sole issue is whether one is an expected participant in the ceremony. 

I think Bosk has said it all here.  Well done, sir.

Agreed.  I'm just not seeing any real issue that requires much more explanation.

Hypothetical Question for you Bosk:
From your posts, I gather you must be in the presence of the ceremony to be required to stand to show respect, and are not if you are experiencing it remotely.

Say you are home alone watching the 49ers game on TV, and the anthem comes on.  Do you stand?

What if there was also a live feed of you on the big screen at the stadium.  Do you stand then?

As to scenario #1:  No.  And I think the reason is clear from what I have posted.  I am not a participant.  I am not present.  Same as if I were watching a court proceeding on TV.  There is no expectation that I participate, although I certainly could choose to do so.

As to scenario #2:  We do not have a cultural norm of having Average Joe Sports Fan simulcast in the stadium, so this is an off-the-wall and not very realistic hypothetical, and I have to make some assumptions to answer it.  But in whatever scenario I can dream up in my mind about why I might be on screen during an NFL game, it seems to me that the intent of the team and/or NFL is to form a relationship with me and the event such that I am virtually "participating" despite doing so remotely.  In that case, as with the teleconference example you mentioned above, yes, I believe there is an expectation and obligation for me to participate.  This is different from the scenario of, again, where I am not a participant in any way, shape, or form and am merely observing privately from afar. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3234
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #137 on: September 09, 2016, 10:43:39 AM »
Not seeing it.

Well that's a you problem.  I can clearly see people judging others' lack of respect, when their own actions show little, or hollow respect.  It is readily apparent every day, on a plethora of topics, including this one.

Well, no.  He absolutely IS obligated to do so.  Etiquette of this type absolutely IS an obligation.  The only question is whether he is excused from that obligation.  His right does not in any way supercede etiquette other than his right protecting him from the government punishing him for not observing said etiquette, and even that is a very limited right.  And whether he needs permission is solely up to his employer and whether they choose to require permission.

No, there is no obligation to do so.  You might want to refresh yourself on what obligation means.  Just because YOU think he has an obligation because of YOUR custom or YOUR belief, or YOUR morals, does not make it an obligation to HIM.  Does his employer, or rule of law, or his beliefs obligate him?  Obviously not.  I see no obligation here at all.  Someone thinking it is his obligation, does not actually make it his obligation.

There doesn't need to be a "reason" for the line to be drawn where it is.  One is either part of the ceremony or not.  In the vast majority of real-world contexts, this is crystal clear.

Actually, the custom (Flag Code) defines it as being PRESENT.  Not PARTICIPATION.  Participation is not the defining criteria.  A spectator may not be a participant.  He is PRESENT.
The General stands for the president on a video conference call because he is a PARTICIPANT, but not PRESENT.  You cant have it both ways.

So which is it?  PRESENT?  PARTICIPANT?  BOTH?  NEITHER?

You being on the big screen makes you neither PRESENT, nor a PARTICIPANT (it is merely your image and no means of interaction.)  It is no different than being at home watching it on TV.   Yet most would stand as they knew people could see them.  That is my point, and why I think most people stand for it.  Some have true respect.  Some have hollow respect and and more worried about the perception others have of them.  MOST would stand if they knew people at the stadium could see them on their couch.  WHY?  They are not required to stand as they are not a participant, or present.  To me it is an insight as to why people do it, and why I feel the hatred toward Colin is hypocritical.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 10:55:01 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #138 on: September 09, 2016, 10:54:08 AM »
Notwithstanding any of this (still think Bosk nailed it perfectly), I think the real point is that Colin Kaepernick achieved his purpose.    It worked, and as such, you will see this again in the near future.   

(For what it's worth, his jersey sales have SOARED; I believe right now his is the number one selling NFL jersey). 

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #139 on: September 09, 2016, 10:58:01 AM »
Not seeing it.

Well that's a you problem.  I can clearly see people judging others' lack of respect, when their own actions show little, or hollow respect.  It is readily apparent every day, on a plethora of topics, including this one.

It's not a "me" problem at all, because I have no problem with it.  Others' lack of respect over something so insignificant isn't something I pay much attention to, so to the extent there is a lack of respect somewhere out there, I don't view it as my problem.  Other than the fact that it is showing up in a thread here where a few people have a misunderstanding of flag etiquette, I tend not to pay much attention to it.

Well, no.  He absolutely IS obligated to do so.  Etiquette of this type absolutely IS an obligation.  The only question is whether he is excused from that obligation.  His right does not in any way supercede etiquette other than his right protecting him from the government punishing him for not observing said etiquette, and even that is a very limited right.  And whether he needs permission is solely up to his employer and whether they choose to require permission.

No, there is no obligation to do so.  You might want to refresh yourself on what obligation means.  Just because YOU think he has an obligation because of YOUR custom or YOUR belief, or YOUR morals, does not make it an obligation to HIM.  Does his employer, or rule of law, or his beliefs obligate him?  Nope.  I see no obligation here at all.

But whether you see an obligation is not relevant to whether one exists.  It isn't a matter of whether *I* think there is an obligation.  It isn't about me.  Or you.  Or Kaepernick.  And rule of law is irrelevant as well.  There is no rule of law requiring standing in the other examples I gave either.  Yet het obligation still exists.

There doesn't need to be a "reason" for the line to be drawn where it is.  One is either part of the ceremony or not.  In the vast majority of real-world contexts, this is crystal clear.

Actually, the custom (Flag Code) defines it as being PRESENT.  Not PARTICIPATION.  Participation is not the defining criteria.  A spectator may not be a participant.  He is PRESENT.

You being on the big screen makes you neither PRESENT, nor a PARTICIPANT (it is merely your image and no means of interaction.)  It is no different than being at home watching it on TV.   Yet most would stand as they knew people could see you.

The Flag Code is not the sole, exhaustive source of the custom of how to show respect for the flag.  Again, you are parsing words to make your argument, but missing the larger point.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."