FireChan

Okay. Why would anyone care if a backup made a playoff game sitting on the bench?

Haven't we addressed this? Are you gonna make a point or just keep drooling on me? Magox has been here for years. He certainly needs no advice from black gator. I think what TYTT has argued in the past is that necessary evils for practicality's sake do exist, but they should never be forgotten as necessary evils.

There's something to be said about EJ being a competitor his whole life. Even though yours is the proper perspective, it must've been tough for a kid who has been the guy his whole life basically to get discarded. Kudos to EJ he kept his head down and continued to work hard. EJM's character was too notch. Why would anyone care if a 3rd string QB saw a playoff game from the bench?

I don't TT making a serious playoff run anytime soon. He may back into the playoffs with a good defense and good pass catchers/good running backs, but that's it, IMO. That makes him no better than Brian Hoyer or Kyle Orton. I think he's a player who teams with good defenses can absolutely shut down..

Deep ball went to 12th to 27th. Remember when the defense went from 4th to 19th? What did you call that?

And here comes the excuses. TT gets sacked 10% of the time under center on 40+ snaps and suddenly he should've been executing 3 step drops under center for years.

I remember seeing you post it. Kudos. The question is why is Sherman the one made expendable first? Yep! Malcolm Smith and Bruce Irvin both had a hand in turning around Oakland too.

Are you going to keep telling me things I already directly reference in my posts? No, it's adding context to your already grossly exaggerated point. TT had a great deep ball in 2015. It dried up in 2016. Now you're shifting to "TD's" when the point was big plays, nice pivot. And you're pretending like we didn't have a bad ST and defense in 2015 or that we weren't the #1 rushing offense in 2015, when Taylor managed to be 19th in TD's thrown and 12th in big passing plays. He seemed to do better even with the "alternate possessions" thing, I think that was a rule instituted before 2016. Please tell me again that TT got way worse in 2016 because he had a great rushing attack and bad defense.

He hasn't beaten out Cook yet.

Except for the pesky fact that we had the 5th least passing big plays in the NFL in 2016. So it's among the very best, except for half of his games when it's among the worst.

Our W-L certainly could be worse in the short term. Not necessarily. My biggest fear about keeping TT was another year or two gun shy on QB's. If cutting TT was the kick in ass this team needed to draft a guy they believe in, I was all for it. If not, he can stick around, it makes no difference. We'll see what happens.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Goodness gracious.

Oh, it doesn't? Thanks.

Brady needs to retire soon. He's making folks lose their minds.

Extreme, yes. But subjectivity is subjectivity, no? If there's no universal morality, there can be no universal immorality. I provided an example that shows just how absurd that notion is. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you're now taking umbrage; you initially challenged my notion that killing a woman for engaging in premarital sex is immoral. Shades of gray, huh? My position has been that the idea of "subjective" morality is and always will be incorrect. That does not mean I have all the answers, but I surely have a few. Owning slaves was immoral. You have a clear misunderstanding of history but if your claim was true, then fighting to perpetuate immorality is also immoral.

Slavery is, was and will always be immoral.

Jeesh. I don't want this guy next to me in my foxhole. An innocent woman gets her head cut off and you say, "Who am I to judge?" Bizzaro. That's how it always ends. Moral relativism is one of the greatest forces of decay in our civilization.

Just as some believe it is morally correct to kill women who have premarital sex. They are allowed to have that belief. It just makes them wrong.

Well I fundamentally disagree with that. I believe in one universal morality. Claiming morality is subjective gives carte blanche to anyone under the sun to do whatever they want. Further more, to claim moral subjectivity, how do you apply your practical beliefs? How do you decide to assess the truth of the situation of whether a man should be allowed to beat his wife if she disobeys him without morality? The State is only at the mercy of its citizens when it wants to be, then. I find that distasteful. And to have ended poorly throughout history.

That would make the ACA AND any nationalistic-based reform that goes through the proper channels moral, then? Then the only moral course of action would be the immediate disarmament of all WMD's but the State. Until that day comes, the private citizen will have a gun pointed at their head with no reciprocation.

Ask the State. Apparently you believe they are allowed to point a gun at me. Since we cannot invent a time machine and uninvent WMD's, the only moral solution to a State who has taken aim at every citizen is for them to have that reciprocated/

I assure you, I'm not backtracking. You asked if private citizens should be allowed to own nukes. The answer is and will always be yes. I don't believe the rights of the State are superior to the rights of the individual. It's that simple.

I refuse to shackle myself and submit to the collective "state" that holds this kind of weaponry. It is immoral for the government to be allowed to do something that I am not. Lest they find it easy to forget who empowers them. Magox doesn't argue morality, he argues from a basis of pragmatism.