bbills17 Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I've re-read my comment and I don't think it's ignorant. (Canada and the UK are two places where they spell "honor", "honour". In the USA we spell it, "honor".) If you think spelling it "honour" is sophisticated, it isn't. It only makes you seem pretentious. (BTW, I still think my comment was funny...but I wouldn't expect a pretentious person to have much of a sense of humor. Perhaps you have a sense of humour.") 639428[/snapback] Not trying to be pretentious or 'sophisticated', I'm Canadian thank you.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Your a good sport. It was all in fun. 639484[/snapback] I feel ya. (Not in THAT way, you pervs.)
The Dean Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Not trying to be pretentious or 'sophisticated', I'm Canadian thank you. 639486[/snapback] Well, then. My original comment stands. (I guess I'm not ignorant...well, at least not based on that comment.)
stuckincincy Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Not trying to be pretentious or 'sophisticated', I'm Canadian thank you. 639486[/snapback] Where in Canada? A number of posters are from Ontario - proximity to the Bills.
Orton's Arm Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 First of all, how the heck do you know WHERE Moulds' kids are (or that he has 9)? You think they're all Buffalonians? He lives in New Orleans during the offseason -- perhaps a few are there? He goes on roadtrips for 8 out of 17 weeks -- perhaps his kids are scattered throughout the US? Your assumption that him leaving Buffalo implies less time with his kids is pretty presumptuous on your part. Not to mention your uber-moralistic view of this situation. Fathering kids out of wedlock is wrong in YOUR opinion. But since society doesn't deem it a crime, there are people who might disagree. If you want upstanding Christians on your football team, especially at the WR position, good luck. I'll leave it at that... Onto more important things -- Moulds actually did work out with JP in the offseason and spent a good part of his time in the team's complex. Mularkey on numerous occassions cited Moulds as one of the most helpful teammates in terms of JP's development. So your facts are wrong there. If you're referring to Moulds speaking out on Holcomb -- he was merely speaking for the entire team. There were very few people on that team that liked JP -- and that's a fact. 639439[/snapback] I don't know where Moulds' kids are. If you're right in suggesting they're scattered about the country--which seems likely enough--then that casts his decision to leave the Bills in a less unfavorable light. I don't have a problem with Moulds' comments about Holcomb, and I agree he was voicing the sentiments of most of the Bills in saying what he said. You say there are people who might disagree with my comments about the morality of fathering kids out of wedlock. Not really sure what your point is there. Right and wrong are what they are, and people's opinions don't change these things. I'm more interested in the process by which society came to increase its acceptance of out-of-wedlock fatherhood. If you were to show me the thought process itself was valid, I'd be more interested. As for my remark about Moulds not working out with Losman during the off-season, the original source is here: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=627853 If the information's incorrect, I'll be happy to take that into account.
Orton's Arm Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 At least your more entertaining and clever than the Arm. 639477[/snapback] That's the biggest compliment I've ever seen you give!
The Dean Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Right and wrong are what they are, and people's opinions don't change these things. 639501[/snapback] It's good to know we have the arbiter of what's right and wrong right here on TSW. I know I'll sleep easier tonight. (How can I NOT be condescending when you say stuff like that?)
Orton's Arm Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 (How can I NOT be condescending when you say stuff like that?) 639507[/snapback] Sure. Blame your personality problems on me why dontcha? My original statement was that right and wrong are what they are, and people's opinions don't change them. Let's pretend the opposite was true, and that people's opinions do change what's right and wrong. In Nazi Germany, Jewish culture would be deeply immoral, because it would be considered such by the majority of the people there. In the modern U.S., Jewish culture would be moral, because most people consider it so. We're talking about the same underlying thing being evil in one place, and good in another. Or how about the suicide bomber? In the U.S., we consider such people evil terrorists. But many Palestinians view such people as heroic freedom fighters. So a would-be suicide bomber would morph between good and evil depending on whether those determining his moral status were Americans or Palestinians. This is moral relativism. Moral clarity is the opposite: it states that the suicide bomber is either good or evil, and that those who see the situation differently need to be persuaded otherwise. Instead of being guided by the conclusions of the people of, say, Nazi Germany, I look at the validity of the process by which the people came to have their beliefs. The average person in Nazi Germany probably knew very little about Jewish culture beyond what he or she had heard in the media. So an investigation into widely held opinions quickly becomes an investigation into the media, its actions, and the intentions of those controlling it. The same could be said about widely held views in the U.S. I'm not trying to lump the Nazi and American media together, because clearly they're very different. But both have (or had) enormous influences on what people believe.
bbills17 Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Where in Canada? A number of posters are from Ontario - proximity to the Bills. 639495[/snapback] I'm from Ottawa, and make it down for at least a game every year.
stuckincincy Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I'm from Ottawa, and make it down for at least a game every year. 639533[/snapback] I don't think I've been in Ottawa for 30 years or so. I remember it as a beautiful city loaded with decent folks. I hope it's still the same.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Sure. Blame your personality problems on me why dontcha? My original statement was that right and wrong are what they are, and people's opinions don't change them. Let's pretend the opposite was true, and that people's opinions do change what's right and wrong. In Nazi Germany, Jewish culture would be deeply immoral, because it would be considered such by the majority of the people there. In the modern U.S., Jewish culture would be moral, because most people consider it so. We're talking about the same underlying thing being evil in one place, and good in another. Or how about the suicide bomber? In the U.S., we consider such people evil terrorists. But many Palestinians view such people as heroic freedom fighters. So a would-be suicide bomber would morph between good and evil depending on whether those determining his moral status were Americans or Palestinians. This is moral relativism. Moral clarity is the opposite: it states that the suicide bomber is either good or evil, and that those who see the situation differently need to be persuaded otherwise. Instead of being guided by the conclusions of the people of, say, Nazi Germany, I look at the validity of the process by which the people came to have their beliefs. The average person in Nazi Germany probably knew very little about Jewish culture beyond what he or she had heard in the media. So an investigation into widely held opinions quickly becomes an investigation into the media, its actions, and the intentions of those controlling it. The same could be said about widely held views in the U.S. I'm not trying to lump the Nazi and American media together, because clearly they're very different. But both have (or had) enormous influences on what people believe. 639508[/snapback] WOW! Did you get lost half way through an Intro to Philosphy class? That is one of the most bizarre and simplistic discussions of moral absolutism I've ever encountered. Without getting into an exchange you are entirely incapable of understanding...let's move on to just a couple of points: I believe your "original statement" was that having children out of wedlock was wrong. Let's not get too wrapped up with Nazi's here. To think that a rejection of morality being absolute has anything to do with what the majority of people believe is absurd. (Think "context" and "outcome" and you'll start to get closer.) Even if SOME morality is absolute...what makes you think YOU have any idea of what that morality is? Damn...I clearly brought up points which you are entirely incapable of understanding. My bad. Absolutely!
Orton's Arm Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 WOW! Did you get lost half way through an Intro to Philosphy class? That is one of the most bizarre and simplistic discussions of moral absolutism I've ever encountered. Without getting into an exchange you are entirely incapable of understanding...let's move on to just a couple of points: I believe your "original statement" was that having children out of wedlock was wrong. Let's not get too wrapped up with Nazi's here. To think that a rejection of morality being absolute has anything to do with what the majority of people believe is absurd. (Think "context" and "outcome" and you'll start to get closer.) Even if SOME morality is absolute...what makes you think YOU have any idea of what that morality is? Damn...I clearly brought up points which you are entirely incapable of understanding. My bad. Absolutely! 639609[/snapback] Interesting that you A) call me stupid, and B) throw in a grammatically incorrect apostrophe in the word Nazis. The rest of your post had no value, but that's par for the course. In case you've forgotten, this discussion is about my statement that right and wrong don't change based on people's opinions. Bringing up the widely differing views of morality that existed in Nazi Germany, Palestine, and the U.S. is clearly relevant to that type of discussion.
apuszczalowski Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 And, by the way, it's Flavor Flav (not Flava Flav). 639477[/snapback] Actually I believe it is Flava Flav But I believe the upper class white translation is Flavour Flav (don't take this a s a racial comment)
The Dean Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Actually I believe it is Flava Flav But I believe the upper class white translation is Flavour Flav (don't take this a s a racial comment) 639674[/snapback] I always thought it was Flava Flav, but i was wrong. He was VERY adamant and specific about this recently. http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/flavor_flav/artist.jhtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Flav http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0281318/ I was surprised, too.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Interesting that you A) call me stupid, and B) throw in a grammatically incorrect apostrophe in the word Nazis. The rest of your post had no value, but that's par for the course. In case you've forgotten, this discussion is about my statement that right and wrong don't change based on people's opinions. Bringing up the widely differing views of morality that existed in Nazi Germany, Palestine, and the U.S. is clearly relevant to that type of discussion. 639665[/snapback] Can you say "typo"? I knew that you could. BTW, I don't see where the discussion was about how right and wrong is based on people's opinions (or peoples' opinions...take your pick) except for in your post. The closest thing to it in another's post is when dawgg posted: "Fathering kids out of wedlock is wrong in YOUR opinion. But since society doesn't deem it a crime, there are people who might disagree?" I'm the first one to call you out on that comment. Popular opinion has nothing to do with what's right and wrong, IMO. And neither do your pronouncements.
Dawgg Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I'm going to go out on a limb and try and veer this conversation back to football -- by just stating the fact that Moulds does not deserve the degree of criticism he is getting on this board, particularly in the cases in which his personal life becomes an issue. Moulds has never had an off-field issue that inhibits his play on the field and that's really all that should matter here. He has been a very diplomatic teammate, having worked with the likes of Todd Collins, Rob Johnson, Alex Van Pelt, and JP Losman. This year, after years and years of ineptitude under the Tom Donahoe era, Moulds snapped. I feel it's time for him (and the team) to move on. With that being said, I'm not going to buy into the pattern that is constantly followed around here -- trash the guy on his way out the door. If you want to talk about his refusal to go back into the Miami game, fine... what he did was wrong -- but from what I have heard (and I do have some sources on the team, regardless of what people believe), he had a legitimate case and had the unequivical support of the great majority of the team. For those of you who want to cite his off-field life and plethora of offspring -- you're really reaching for stuff because that simply is not relevant. If you think it's wrong, that's perfectly fair -- but I would suggest that you turn a deaf ear to what's going on because NFL players sleep around, cheat on their wives, pay for prostitutes and engage in pretty much every immoral act out there -- if you want to believe otherwise, more power to you. But that's not why I watch sports, or the Bills for that matter. I do not confuse sports and church. I long to see players who want to be here, players who love the fans and have a sense of pride in the Bills. After the Super Bowl years, those types of players have been few and far between -- Moulds is as close as it gets (along with Chris Spielman). Whether you want to believe it or not, he wanted to stay in Buffalo and wanted nothing more than to bring a winner to its fans. Was he in the class of Harrison or Moss? No.. but he was an elite receiver for many years and came to play on Sundays. I hope for his sake he lands in a good situation. Can you say "typo"? I knew that you could. BTW, I don't see where the discussion was about how right and wrong is based on people's opinions (or peoples' opinions...take your pick) except for in your post. The closest thing to it in another's post is when dawgg posted: "Fathering kids out of wedlock is wrong in YOUR opinion. But since society doesn't deem it a crime, there are people who might disagree?" I'm the first one to call you out on that comment. Popular opinion has nothing to do with what's right and wrong, IMO. And neither do your pronouncements. 639681[/snapback]
Acantha Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Interesting that you A) call me stupid, and B) throw in a grammatically incorrect apostrophe in the word Nazis. The rest of your post had no value, but that's par for the course. In case you've forgotten, this discussion is about my statement that right and wrong don't change based on people's opinions. Bringing up the widely differing views of morality that existed in Nazi Germany, Palestine, and the U.S. is clearly relevant to that type of discussion. 639665[/snapback] You're (deal with it) opinion of what is right and wrong don't change based on people's opinions. You are entirely too simple to be that arrogant.
bartshan-83 Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 He's got nine kids with many different women.639329[/snapback] I would be interested to know where you heard that. 639329[/snapback] Whenever you're ready....
Mile High Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Not starting another Moulds thread but saw this. Broncos | Team contacted about Moulds Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:39:42 -0800 Bill Williamson, of the Denver Post, reports the agents for Buffalo Bills WR Eric Moulds contacted the Denver Broncos and four other teams about a trade for Moulds.
Orton's Arm Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 For those of you who want to cite his off-field life and plethora of offspring -- you're really reaching for stuff because that simply is not relevant. If you think it's wrong, that's perfectly fair -- but I would suggest that you turn a deaf ear to what's going on because NFL players sleep around, cheat on their wives, pay for prostitutes and engage in pretty much every immoral act out there -- if you want to believe otherwise, more power to you. 639690[/snapback] It's easier to root for a team with your whole heart when you like the players as individuals. For me, it's harder to like a guy if I've got reason to believe he's fathering kids and then abandoning them. Why should I be thrilled if a guy like this succeeds on the field? Because of the uniform he's wearing? This team didn't have the same character it did during the Super Bowl years. I still rooted for it, but it wasn't the same.
Recommended Posts