Josh Allen on 10 Questions with Kyle Brandt TOMORROW

[DaggersEOD]

19 minutes ago, H2o said:

Hence why I said he had to tip-toe around his answer in a previous post. Whatever he said, he said. That's his opinion. Respect that it's his opinion. I didn't say that you have to agree with his opinion. That's the difference. Because his opinion differs from some who see his opinion as "craptastic", while their opinion they see as more "glitter and rainbows", is exactly what I am talking about with the day and age we live in. I am not going to attack you for advocating for him to "Get the jab, Josh." I am not going to attack you or anyone else who are advocating for it in general. The problem lies wherein people don't respect his reasoning and try to force theirs upon him, all while trying to explain that their stance is right while his is wrong. The horde coming after him because he's not in line for or advocating for the "the jab" so to speak. That's what I find ignorant. That is all. If you want to continue this conversation then PM's are good as I know you don't want the board to get cluttered with such things. If not, I am done with what I felt I needed to say my friend.  

 

Completely agree with all here. Some opinions are treated differently than others.

[BillsFan4]

16 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

I definitely got the sense that Allen really doesn't want any of his starters on offense replaced when he said he assumes we'll go Defense in the draft.

I didn’t get that impression at all. I figured he said that because he knew the offense was the better unit last season (but obviously couldn’t say that), so he figured they’d focus more on defense.

 

Plus, the defense is returning as many starters as offense.

Edited April 8, 2021 by BillsFan4

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 minutes ago, H2o said:

Hence why I said he had to tip-toe around his answer in a previous post. Whatever he said, he said. That's his opinion. Respect that it's his opinion. I didn't say that you have to agree with his opinion. That's the difference. Because his opinion differs from some who see his opinion as "craptastic", while their opinion they see as more "glitter and rainbows", is exactly what I am talking about with the day and age we live in. I am not going to attack you for advocating for him to "Get the jab, Josh." I am not going to attack you or anyone else who are advocating for it in general. The problem lies wherein people don't respect his reasoning and try to force theirs upon him, all while trying to explain that their stance is right while his is wrong. The horde coming after him because he's not in line for or advocating for the "the jab" so to speak. That's what I find ignorant. That is all. If you want to continue this conversation then PM's are good as I know you don't want the board to get cluttered with such things. If not, I am done with what I felt I needed to say my friend.  

 

I would note that I specifically said, I wasn't saying Josh's opinion was craptastic.  I don't think you were putting those words in my mouth, but I can see why someone might read your response and not my post, and conclude I did say that, so it seems worth pointing out.  It has the appearance of misrepresenting what I said.

 

"The horde coming after him because he's not advocating for 'the jab' = "Ignorant" to you, Fair Enough.  I would probably call "coming after anyone" in public on Twitter ignorant behavior, myself, so there's little to argue about there.

 

What I was responding to from you was more general:

Quote

This is the day and age we live in, where you can't have your own opinion (that should be respected) without having the horde come after you because you don't just fall in line with what others "think" you should say or do. It's totally ignorant. 

 

Where I think we disagree is in feeling all opinions should be respected.  You seem to make make a dichotomy between respecting "that it's his opinion" vs "agreeing with it" that I find irrelevant with regard to the specific quote I pulled out:

Quote

"I think everybody should have that choice to do it or not to do it. You get in this tricky situation now where, if you do mandate that, that's kind of going against what our constitution says and the freedom to kind of express yourself one way or the other. I think we're in a time where that's getting a lot harder to do.

 

I can and do respect plenty of opinions I don't agree with - they are based on facts, they just interpret those facts differently than I do.  If Josh said "I realize that in the past 200 years, mandatory public health measures have been repeatedly supported by the Courts as Constitutional due to Amendment 10, but I feel that should change because I believe individual freedom should be paramount over concerns about the public good" I would vehemently disagree, but I would respect his opinion because it acknowledges factual history, it just comes from a different value system or viewpoint than mine. 

 

I would guess if Josh or another football player came here, they would feel pretty strongly that they don't respect a bunch of Football opinions here that aren't based on knowledge of the game and the assigned roles of different players, but there would be other opinions where they would say "OK, that person seems to understand how that play was designed, I just disagree with their interpretation of what happened", if that makes any sense (trying to stay topical here)

 

 

 

 

[BillsFan4]

18 minutes ago, DaggersEOD said:

 

Completely agree with all here. Some opinions are treated differently than others.

As they should be.

 

Not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are not based on facts and should be treated as such (not talking about this specific conversation, just in general)

[Hapless Bills Fan]

22 minutes ago, H2o said:

Maybe I should have worded that different and used his "stance" versus his opinion or people's in general. In this instance, yes, respect that he hasn't made up his mind on allowing someone to put something into his body. Respect that he doesn't think it would be right to be required of him to put it in his body. Do you have to agree? No, but respect that is his stance. Comparing flat-earthers to someone who hasn't decided whether he wants to get a vaccine does not even correlate. Truthfully we could go back-and-forth with the word play of it all day long, but you understand what I am getting at with what I am saying. 

 

I can respect that Josh hasn't made up his mind yet, and acknowledges maybe he should have been following it a bit more.

 

I can respect that Josh might feel it's not right that someone should be required to be vaccinated, but I feel he needs to recognize facts that this has in fact been required at different points in time by different local and state organizations as a public health mandate, and upheld repeatedly by the courts as Constitutional with very limited exemptions for health and religious belief.  Framing it as a Constitutional violation to require public health measures doesn't jibe with history, so I don't respect an opinion based on that premise.  He may think it shouldn't be that way, but acknowledge history: it has been.

 

I agree with you that flat-earthers is a poor analogy, I think it was probably intended as an exaggeration to make a point, or at least I hope so.

 

 

[DaggersEOD]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I can and do respect plenty of opinions I don't agree with - they are based on facts, they just interpret those facts differently than I do.  If Josh said "I realize that in the past 200 years, mandatory public health measures have been repeatedly supported by the Courts as Constitutional due to Amendment 10, but I feel that should change because I believe individual freedom should be paramount over concerns about the public good" I would vehemently disagree, but I would respect his opinion because it acknowledges factual history, it just comes from a different value system or viewpoint than mine.

 

You keep conflating safe vaccines with experimental vaccines as if they are equal.  Never in those 200 years did anyone mandate an unproven vaccine whose long term effects on humans have not been determined.  It takes YEARS for a vaccine to be vetted. Not 9 months.

 

Saying that proven and vetted vaccines are good/safe so therefore ALL vaccines are good/safe is like saying "I didn't assault these massage therapists, so therefore I didn't assault ANY therapists".

1 minute ago, BillsFan4 said:

As they should be.

 

Not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are not based on facts and should be treated as such (not talking about this specific conversation, just in general)

 

Unfortunately, it seems these days both sides have their "facts" and they use them to shut down any constructive debate.

[JaCrispy]

On 4/7/2021 at 10:16 AM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

There are sides.  That's a fact.  The problem is that there is no "neutral".  Josh holding back from making a decision is a form of making a decision, thus taking a side.

 

PSA: I don't want this to become "baby vaccine discussion thread", so thread editing will take place.  Narrow focus on what Josh said will stay.  Getting into personal opining or general discussion will go.

 

 

In other words, you see Josh as taking a "side".  I actually don't think that was his intent - I think he was trying to come across as neutral.

...only to people who want to put everyone in boxes...I have no problem with what he said, and agree, it’s up to everyone to make their own decision on their own time...

 

And eventually most, if not all, of society  will eventually acquire the antibodies over the next 10 years...and it isn’t achieved by injection...that is a false narrative...I know of many people who would rather get the virus naturally (without injection) if they were going to get it...some people want to wait out the vaccine and see the results on society first, before making a determination...some don’t mind being injected as soon as possible...and there is nothing wrong with them choosing any of those imo...

Edited April 8, 2021 by JaCrispy

[JaCrispy]

On 4/7/2021 at 11:13 AM, Bangarang said:

I haven’t listened yet but the discussion surrounding his vaccine response sounds so petty and lame. 
 

Based on what was quoted, it doesn’t seem like Josh said anything wild or crazy so who the hell cares? Peak offseason drama.

 

Nobody is going to remember or care in September when he’s torching defenses 

 

 

It’s very lame, Bang...the fact that so many people get so worked up about what other people do medically is somewhat comical imo...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

22 minutes ago, DaggersEOD said:

You keep conflating safe vaccines with experimental vaccines as if they are equal.  Never in those 200 years did anyone mandate an unproven vaccine whose long term effects on humans have not been determined.  It takes YEARS for a vaccine to be vetted. Not 9 months.

 

Where did I say that?  Did I say somewhere that the covid-19 vaccine should be mandated?  Actually, I've said that it can't be (which may be incorrect, due to a legal opinion provided to me by another member, but it's my understanding of EUA authorization:

I don't expect you to have seen everything I post, but please don't put words in my mouth, either

 

Quote

Saying that proven and vetted vaccines are good/safe so therefore ALL vaccines are good/safe is like saying "I didn't assault these massage therapists, so therefore I didn't assault ANY therapists".

 

This is a total straw man, as no one has said that.   Nor do I, personally, criticize Josh for saying he hasn't made up his mind yet or that he maybe hasn't followed it as much as he should.

 

Discussion of the actual EUA process (which involves full clinical trials and safety review) is beyond the scope of discussing Josh's interview so I won't go there.

 

 

Quote

Unfortunately, it seems these days both sides have their "facts" and they use them to shut down any constructive debate.

 

🙄

[H2o]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I can respect that Josh hasn't made up his mind yet, and acknowledges maybe he should have been following it a bit more.

 

I can respect that Josh might feel it's not right that someone should be required to be vaccinated, but I feel he needs to recognize facts that this has in fact been required at different points in time by different local and state organizations as a public health mandate, and upheld repeatedly by the courts with very limited exemptions for health and religious belief.  Framing it as a Constitutional violation to require public health measures doesn't jibe with the facts, so I don't respect an opinion based on that premise.  He may think it shouldn't be that way, but acknowledge history: it has been.

 

I agree with you that flat-earthers is a poor analogy, I think it was probably intended as an exaggeration to make a point, or at least I hope so.

 

 

And I respect your stance, Hap, though I don't agree with what you believe or the premise you base it off of because I see the circumstances as different. I can respect your stance, not agree with it, and carry on with life not requiring anyone else to agree with me instead or deem it necessary within myself that they should. It's everyone's freedom of choice that is such a wonderful thing. 

[DaggersEOD]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is a total straw man, as no one has said that.   Nor do I, personally, criticize Josh for saying he hasn't made up his mind yet or that he maybe hasn't followed it as much as he should.

 

Discussion of the actual EUA process (which involves full clinical trials and safety review) is beyond the scope of discussing Josh's interview so I won't go there.

 

Anyone reading your posts in this thread can easily ID the position you've staked out in this conversation. You think it's foolish not to "get the jab".

 

Can you show me a post where you urge caution because this is still an experimental vaccine with unknown long/medium term health effects? That it is just as reasonable to "wait and see" as it is to "get the jab" without understanding the health implications.

 

Because I can point to multiple posts where you deride anyone who holds that POV.

 

Just saying. Both sides of this debate can be respected, even if you disagree.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 minutes ago, DaggersEOD said:

 

Anyone reading your posts in this thread can easily ID the position you've staked out in this conversation. You think it's foolish not to "get the jab".

 

I thought we were all supposed to respect everyone's personal opinions here?  Now because it's mine, we don't?

 

There's a uuuuge difference between believing everyone should "get the Jab" (which is my personal opinion) and some of the positions you are imputing to me such as

Quote

You keep conflating safe vaccines with experimental vaccines as if they are equal. 

Quote

Saying that proven and vetted vaccines are good/safe so therefore ALL vaccines are good/safe

 

No one has said the latter.  I have not said the former.  And it's a huge leap from my personal opinion that everyone should get the jab, to the above.  Do not put words in my mouth.

 

Quote

Because I can point to multiple posts where you deride anyone who holds that POV.

 

Hit me in PM.  PM me links to all the posts where I am reasonably interpreted as "deride"ing  anyone, about anything.  Stand and deliver.  Go.

 

Otherwise don't write checks you can't cash, and don't put words in my mouth.

 

I won't respond further to this here as it's personal against me and not relevant to the topic under discussion - way too generalized.  You're getting one free pass here but only one.

[Tommy Callahan]

people over reacting. he never said not to.  he stated his opinion. its still a free country, everyoen still has the first.  

 

 

[GETTOTHE50]

People shouldn’t be looking to a guy who throws a pigskin for a living for medical advice anyway 

[Reed83HOF]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Nah.

 

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

― Isaac Asimov

 

This is why we have so many Flat Earthers in 2021. This idea that ALL opinions should be "respected".  FACTS should be respected. Opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one and most stink. There is no requirement that all should be respected.

You remember the stupid kids in school? I got news for you, they grew up to be stupid adults...

 

As a young child,  you tend to think that adults know what they are talking about,  that is a lie. Your dumb classmates grew up to be dumb adults...

[DaggersEOD]

38 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I thought we were all supposed to respect everyone's personal opinions here?  Now because it's mine, we don't?

 

There's a uuuuge difference between believing everyone should "get the Jab" (which is my personal opinion) and some of the positions you are imputing to me such as

 

No one has said the latter.  I have not said the former.  And it's a huge leap from my personal opinion that everyone should get the jab, to the above.  Do not put words in my mouth.

 

 

Hit me in PM.  PM me links to all the posts where I am reasonably interpreted as "deride"ing  anyone, about anything.  Stand and deliver.  Go.

 

Otherwise don't write checks you can't cash, and don't put words in my mouth.

 

I won't respond further to this here as it's personal against me and not relevant to the topic under discussion - way too generalized.  You're getting one free pass here but only one.

 

Wow deleting my legit and respectful opinion/response while keeping your personal attack up is very cool bro.

[BidsJr]

34 minutes ago, DaggersEOD said:

 

Wow deleting my legit and respectful opinion/response while keeping your personal attack up is very cool bro.

 

 

Message board moderators are in a position required to control the flow of speech at their discretion.

 

None of this, including opinions on the jab should be of any surprise.

[78thealltimegreat]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I would note that I specifically said, I wasn't saying Josh's opinion was craptastic.  I don't think you were putting those words in my mouth, but I can see why someone might read your response and not my post, and conclude I did say that, so it seems worth pointing out.  It has the appearance of misrepresenting what I said.

 

"The horde coming after him because he's not advocating for 'the jab' = "Ignorant" to you, Fair Enough.  I would probably call "coming after anyone" in public on Twitter ignorant behavior, myself, so there's little to argue about there.

 

What I was responding to from you was more general:

 

Where I think we disagree is in feeling all opinions should be respected.  You seem to make make a dichotomy between respecting "that it's his opinion" vs "agreeing with it" that I find irrelevant with regard to the specific quote I pulled out:

 

I can and do respect plenty of opinions I don't agree with - they are based on facts, they just interpret those facts differently than I do.  If Josh said "I realize that in the past 200 years, mandatory public health measures have been repeatedly supported by the Courts as Constitutional due to Amendment 10, but I feel that should change because I believe individual freedom should be paramount over concerns about the public good" I would vehemently disagree, but I would respect his opinion because it acknowledges factual history, it just comes from a different value system or viewpoint than mine. 

 

I would guess if Josh or another football player came here, they would feel pretty strongly that they don't respect a bunch of Football opinions here that aren't based on knowledge of the game and the assigned roles of different players, but there would be other opinions where they would say "OK, that person seems to understand how that play was designed, I just disagree with their interpretation of what happened", if that makes any sense (trying to stay topical here)

 

 

 

 

Watched ESPN today not a peep about it proof once again twitter isn’t the real world come to think of it most people on twitter don’t exist anyway 

[uticaclub]

He’s not a doctor, he’s a quarterback, telling people to do their own research was the best response

[Buftex]

Allen is 24 years old, living in California.  If he is like most of the people I know that are his age (I work with a lot of them) he isn't concerned with the vaccine, or hasn't been, because in a lot of places, people his age (especially pro athletes) don't qualify to get them.  I believe Josh wouldn't be able to get one in California until April 15th.  Much ado about nothing.