Whaley started the internet on fire today

[Joe Fo Sho]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

I didn't say it makes it OK. Them being wrong too doesn't make Whaley right, and at least they're not being hypocrytes about it

But they are hypocrites, they're just liars too. You seem to just be upset that Whaley isn't claiming ignorance like the rest of them.

The executives at McDonald's know more about how they're causing obesity than probably anyone in the world, just like oil companies knew about climate change before anyone else did. The NFL probably knew about brain damage well before the general public did, too. They just claim ignorance.

Claiming his statement doesn't have broader implications because he mentioned Watkins is being intentionally obtuse. Claiming it isn't unethical to profit off something he admits is harmful is just ridiculous.

It's only harmful to the people that sign up to be harmed. It's not ridiculous, and you can even argue that it's not unethical.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

Claiming his statement doesn't have broader implications because he mentioned Watkins is being intentionally obtuse. Claiming it isn't unethical to profit off something he admits is harmful is just ridiculous.

Is Watkins some kind of slave? No, he's a highly paid professional in a dangerous line of work. The broader implication of his statement is that people get injured while playing football and it's not fair to label them injury prone as a result.

Don't you train at an MMA gym? I thought you said you worked out with semi-pro fighters. Is your coach being unethical for taking money to train guys to hurt each other?

[OpIv37]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

Is Watkins some kind of slave? No, he's a highly paid professional in a dangerous line of work. The broader implication of his statement is that people get injured while playing football and it's not fair to label them injury prone as a result.

Don't you train at an MMA gym? I thought you said you worked out with semi-pro fighters. Is your coach being unethical for taking money to train guys to hurt each other?

A risk of getting hurt is different than saying "human beings shouldn't do this" while profiting off it anyway.

[OpIv37]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

But they are hypocrites, they're just liars too. You seem to just be upset that Whaley isn't claiming ignorance like the rest of them.

The executives at McDonald's know more about how they're causing obesity than probably anyone in the world, just like oil companies knew about climate change before anyone else did. The NFL probably knew about brain damage well before the general public did, too. They just claim ignorance.



It's only harmful to the people that sign up to be harmed. It's not ridiculous, and you can even argue that it's not unethical.

Whaley said "humans shouldn't do this." He thinks it's so bad that humans shouldn't be involved in it but he profits off it anyway.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

A risk of getting hurt is different than saying "human beings shouldn't do this" while profiting off it anyway.

This is the "You didn't build that" silliness all over again.

[OpIv37]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

This is the "You didn't build that" silliness all over again.

Huh?

Those were Whaley's words, not mine

[feldspar]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

A risk of getting hurt is different than saying "human beings shouldn't do this" while profiting off it anyway.

Holy ****.

A poor choice of words by Whaley, maybe...but you know damn well what he meant; that is, unless that stick up your ass goes farther up then I'd realized.

Talk about another non-issue.

All you're doing is arguing semantics, and you're going it in one of the most biased and stupid ways imaginable. Funny how you call yourself a fan of the Bills, yet all of your biases seem to actually be AGAINST the team.

[OpIv37]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

Holy ****.

A poor choice of words, maybe...but you know damn well what he meant; that is, unless that stick up your ass goes farther up the I'd realized.

Talk about another non-issue.

All you're doing is arguing semantics, and you're going it in one of the most biased and stumped ways imaginable. Funny how you call yourself a fan of the Bills, yet all of your biases seem to actually be AGAINST the team.

I don't know what he meant. I do know what he actually said because it was recorded. Its's a known fact, while you are presuming to know what he meant as if you can read his mind. Then you accuse me of being biased?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

Huh?

You don't remember Obama getting hammered for years over half a sentence taken out of context?

Those were Whaley's words, not mine

Humans aren't supposed to play football. They get injured when they do.

Watkins plays football. He got injured. It is unfair to blame him for getting injured while engaging in a sport that injures people.

If you want even more context, listen to the interview. The Watkins question came after a several minute stretch where the hosts questioned him about Shaq Lawson's injury as well.

[feldspar]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

I don't know what he meant.

Then why do you have anything to say about it?

[OpIv37]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

Then why do you have anything to say about it?

Oh Jesus.

Poor phrasing. I know what he said- if he intended it to mean something other than what he said, neither you nor I know what it is.

[feldspar]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

Oh Jesus.

Poor phrasing. I know what he said- if he intended it to mean something other than what he said, neither you nor I know what it is.

It's obvious what he meant.

Did you listen to the interview?

[Pinkerton Security]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

I don't know what he meant. I do know what he actually said because it was recorded. Its's a known fact, while you are presuming to know what he meant as if you can read his mind. Then you accuse me of being biased?

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?

[Mahdi]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/05/25/doug-whaley-saying-humans-shouldnt-play-football-was-a-poor-choice-of-words/

[Joe Fo Sho]

Re: Whaley started the internet on fire today

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...oice-of-words/

I don't know what he meant.

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.