Whaley started the internet on fire today

[sahlensguy]

Quote Originally Posted by Doug Whaley
Clearly I used a poor choice of words in my comment yesterday morning,” Whaley said in the statement. “As a former player who has the utmost respect and love for the game, the point that I was trying to make is that football is a physical game and injuries are a part of it. Playing football no doubt is very physically, mentally, and emotionally challenging, and that is all part of what make the game so compelling to play and watch. The game has more protection for players now than ever, thanks largely to the safety advancements and numerous rule changes made by our league and promoted to all levels of football. I believe our game continues to have a bright future and I hope that this statement provides clarity as to the intent of my earlier comment.

There, now you know what he meant and should be able to see how ridiculous you're being.

And this has anything to do with what he said yesterday how?

[OpIv37]

As always, there is more than 1 way to view what he said. And as always, you took it way out of context and as a way to complain about our FO.

Your claim is that Whaley is a bad person for making money off a sport which we can all agree is detrimental to human's health - if you care so much about these poor souls who are paid money to hurt themselves, then why watch it? Where do you draw the line?

He said humans shouldn't even do it. I draw the line at getting money from things I believe humans shouldn't even do.

- - - Updated - - -

There, now you know what he meant and should be able to see how ridiculous you're being.

If I'm being ridiculous, why does he feel the need to apologia and clarify his statement?

[Joe Fo Sho]

He said humans shouldn't even do it. I draw the line at getting money from things I believe humans shouldn't even do.

I had to stop thinking that way when I got a job at McDonald's in high school because I wanted that sweet sweet minimum wage paycheck. It's pretty easy to get over, especially when you realize that people have control over their own actions and I wasn't forcing them to do anything. Kind of like the situation Whaley is in now, only the people who are choosing that line of work are well compensated.

If I'm being ridiculous, why does he feel the need to apologia and clarify his statement?

I've had to clarify my statements before, mostly to people who didn't comprehend what I meant by the words I said. It was so ridiculous.

[Arm of Harm]

Huh? How can something be "hyper-analyized" by people too busy to think things through? I don't think you know what "hyper" or "analyze" actually mean, because people incapable of thinking things through can't analyze by definition.

Anyone who agrees with Whaley but makes money off of football is admitting to making money off of something that is harmful. Yeah, it's the truth. But it's a truth that makes them despicable human beings. I'm not sure why you think being truthful about being a despicable human being is so much better than lying about being a despicable human being.

Football is harmful. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact. A fact backed up by concussion research, as well as by the unhealed physical damage retired football players endure. In your opinion, Whaley is a despicable human being for making money off something he believes is harmful. If that's how you see things, fine. But what does that say about us as fans? We are also benefiting from this harmful activity. Granted, we're not making money off it. But we still enjoy it and support it. If we didn't, we wouldn't be on this discussion board.

Anyone who claims football isn't harmful is either misinformed or intellectually dishonest. Both the fans and Doug Whaley benefit from this harmful activity. Albeit, our benefit takes the form of enjoyment, whereas his is both enjoyment and monetary. But in a case like this, the degree of benefit is not morally relevant. To use your cigarette analogy, a cigarette company which makes a profit of $1 million is not a thousand times morally cleaner than a cigarette company which makes a $1 billion profit. If Doug Whaley is a "despicable human being" for making money off something harmful, why are the rest of us not also despicable human beings for enjoying football?

[OpIv37]

Football is harmful. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact. A fact backed up by concussion research, as well as by the unhealed physical damage retired football players endure. In your opinion, Whaley is a despicable human being for making money off something he believes is harmful. If that's how you see things, fine. But what does that say about us as fans? We are also benefiting from this harmful activity. Granted, we're not making money off it. But we still enjoy it and support it. If we didn't, we wouldn't be on this discussion board.

Anyone who claims football isn't harmful is either misinformed or intellectually dishonest. Both the fans and Doug Whaley benefit from this harmful activity. Albeit, our benefit takes the form of enjoyment, whereas his is both enjoyment and monetary. But in a case like this, the degree of benefit is not morally relevant. To use your cigarette analogy, a cigarette company which makes a profit of $1 million is not a thousand times morally cleaner than a cigarette company which makes a $1 billion profit. If Doug Whaley is a "despicable human being" for making money off something harmful, why are the rest of us not also despicable human beings for enjoying football?

Eh, I didn't state my opinion particularly well there. We all enjoy and/or profit off of things that are harmful to people.

What makes it different is that he said it's so harmful that people shouldn't do it. When I feel that strongly about something, I can't in good conscience participate in it and I definitely can't profit from it.

[OpIv37]

I had to stop thinking that way when I got a job at McDonald's in high school because I wanted that sweet sweet minimum wage paycheck. It's pretty easy to get over, especially when you realize that people have control over their own actions and I wasn't forcing them to do anything. Kind of like the situation Whaley is in now, only the people who are choosing that line of work are well compensated.



I've had to clarify my statements before, mostly to people who didn't comprehend what I meant by the words I said. It was so ridiculous.

Do you believe that McD's is so bad that no one should eat there ever? That's different than understanding that fast food can be harmful if overconsumed and working there anyway.

And maybe people didn't comprehend what you meant by the words you said because you chose the wrong words and you were the one being ridiculous.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Do you believe that McD's is so bad that no one should eat there ever? That's different than understanding that fast food can be harmful if overconsumed and working there anyway.

"Should" is the operative word here, and it's the same word that Whaley used. People should eat healthy, McDonald's is not healthy, therefore I think people should not eat at McDonald's. I can even say that people should not eat McDonald's ever, because there are better alternatives.

Now "can" people eat at McDonald's? Sure. Can people eat McDonald's and be healthy? Absolutely. Can people play football and not injure themselves? Yup.

I agree with Whaley that people should not play football, but I think they can if they want to. With that thought process, capitalizing on the sport is not unethical.

And maybe people didn't comprehend what you meant by the words you said because you chose the wrong words and you were the one being ridiculous.

Can you clarify this statement?

[Joe Fo Sho]

What makes it different is that he said it's so harmful that people shouldn't do it. When I feel that strongly about something, I can't in good conscience participate in it and I definitely can't profit from it.

Saying someone shouldn't do something in no way indicative of how strongly they feel about it.

[trapezeus]

I usually agree with op, but in this case, I think the context is clear that he was defending Watkins as not injury prone. all the articles that sensationalized picked this one sentence out and used it for the agenda of head injuries. Whaley brings this on himself wording it like this. but his intent was clear to defend Watkins, not to criticize the sport.

[OpIv37]

"Should" is the operative word here, and it's the same word that Whaley used. People should eat healthy, McDonald's is not healthy, therefore I think people should not eat at McDonald's. I can even say that people should not eat McDonald's ever, because there are better alternatives.

Now "can" people eat at McDonald's? Sure. Can people eat McDonald's and be healthy? Absolutely. Can people play football and not injure themselves? Yup.

I agree with Whaley that people should not play football, but I think they can if they want to. With that thought process, capitalizing on the sport is not unethical.



Can you clarify this statement?

You labeled the people who didn't understand you as being "ridiculous" with no consideration of the possibility that you chose your words poorly and did not communicate what you truly meant to say.

[OpIv37]

Saying someone shouldn't do something in no way indicative of how strongly they feel about it.

It is when someone who is supposedly an "expert" at something says people shouldn't do it. This isn't some overprotective mother or chess club nerd who's scared to play. It's someone who should know what they are talking about. If my life and financial well-being depend on an activity, I'm not going to blurt out that people shouldn't participate in it unless I have a damn good reason.

[Joe Fo Sho]

You labeled the people who didn't understand you as being "ridiculous" with no consideration of the possibility that you chose your words poorly and did not communicate what you truly meant to say.

I actually gave strong consideration to that possibility, it just was never the case.

[X-Era]

Frankly I don't care how much Whaley stumbles, mumbles, and misspeaks. He's doing a great job at free agency, drafting, and all the other things under his charge. That's all that really matters as far as I'm concerned.

[OpIv37]

Frankly I don't care how much Whaley stumbles, mumbles, and misspeaks. He's doing a great job at free agency, drafting, and all the other things under his charge. That's all that really matters as far as I'm concerned.

He is? That's why the team is a mere 1 game over .500 during his tenure, we had virtually no cap space this year, and our best draft pick is gonna sit out a good portion of the season, right?

[X-Era]

He is? That's why the team is a mere 1 game over .500 during his tenure, we had virtually no cap space this year, and our best draft pick is gonna sit out a good portion of the season, right?

Yes he is.

Name one single GM who hasn't had a rookie get injured.

Plenty of good GMs have had teams that have under performed. Ryan is to blame for what he did with the groceries.

Tyrod Taylor alone makes the argument. And that doesn't even look at the draft success (when FULLY under his management), resigning our own, and various other roster moves where we got incredible value.

[Cleve]

Well, on a similar note, I personally don't think that Doug Whaley was ever meant to be a football GM. So there's that.

[Buckets]

Rams moving, Brady suspension, Johnny Football, the concussion stuff, two big pre draft trades... This offseason has been more exciting than most.

And you're right about all those things humans weren't meant to do. What makes Whaley a scumbag is that he makes so much money off it while admitting humans weren't meant to do it. He's ok with people ****ing up their lives for our entertainment as long as he's making a buck off of it.

And what does that make us? We support the sport that maims, and sometimes kills human beings. What responsibility do we shoulder? Aren't we like the people who support dog or **** fighting? If we did not continue to shell out the big bucks to support the NFL how long do you think it would last. Just saying, don't get all philosophical on us.

[OpIv37]

Yes he is.

Name one single GM who hasn't had a rookie get injured.

Plenty of good GMs have had teams that have under performed. Ryan is to blame for what he did with the groceries.

Tyrod Taylor alone makes the argument. And that doesn't even look at the draft success (when FULLY under his management), resigning our own, and various other roster moves where we got incredible value.

Yeah we got everything except the one thing that matters: wins.

[X-Era]

Yeah we got everything except the one thing that matters: a head coach that can coach us to wins.

Fixed it

[WagonCircler]

Yeah we got everything except the one thing that matters: wins.

Actually, the only thing that matters in Bills World is successfully brainwashing fans into believing the illusion of progress so they hand over their cash like sheep.

X-Era is a perfect example. Giddy as a schoolgirl over a team that hasn't been to the playoffs in 1.5 decades.

Great job, Whaley! Great job Russ! Mission accomplished!