While Fickface remains a ########.
It’s admirable that Fick raised the topic, even if his opinion is just as repugnant:
“I can’t meet gays in… I don’t want a gay athlete, baseball player, in my clubhouse. It would be ... uncomfortable for me,” said Fick, who also dropped a crude anti-gay slur twice in the first 20 minutes of the show, later couching his statements with “I have some gay friends and it’s all good.”
The actual good news was, the Weavers didn’t agree.
“Just let ‘em be whatever they are. As long as they can hit or pitch, come on in,” Jeff Weaver said.
The best news was, Jered Weaver probably will be playing baseball for a long time, and would have some influence once an active major leaguer finally comes out. This is what he said:
“If you’re hitting .300 with 40 and 140, bring ‘em on, you know?”
“I think it would just be a shock at first, but it’s still your teammate in the long run.”
“They worked just as hard as us to get up to where we’re at.”
It’s not utopian, but at least it’s practical. Fick backed down a little, saying he probably would get used to having a gay teammate. He’s done playing, so we’ll never know. Young added a wince-inducing: “As long as he’s not trying to crack my back in the shower…” before following up with “To me, people are people so it doesn’t bother me.”
Repoz
Posted: January 31, 2013 at 06:48 AM |
215 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
media
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
It's the condemnation of life style choices IN GENERAL* that is Snapper's crime, not his condemnation of sexual mores per se.
If we replace "Gay sex" or "Pre marital sex" with "riding motorcycles" or it doesn't get any better.
* with the assumption that said life style choices are not actually harming others.
"Judge not, lest ye be judged"... is that the correct quote?
Well, it certainly doesn't count as a philosophy.
I would not have objection to being a teammate in any of these scenarios. If any caused me discomfort, it would be 4 and possibly 3, more than 5.
Of course, I suppose I could have subdivided case 5 according to which heterosexual behavior in 1-4 he most closely resembled; all are possible. I even wonder if case #1 (faithful to the one woman back home) might be thought of by his teammates as No Fun. (I have read Ball Four, of course.)
They were just thinking ahead. If they'd distanced themselves from Nazism, it would've made it a lot harder for them to pick a former member of the Hitler Youth as Pope.
Hitler on Christianity and its Jewish roots:
Yap yap yap. Keep flexing those e-muscles tough guy.
That you came to this position AFTER applying critical thinking is jaw-droppingly awful. That your theory also depends on ruining sex for millions and damaging psyches around the world by telling people how terrible they are for enjoying it except within your very narrow schema makes it that much worse.
You're doing it really, really wrong.
Think of all the ridiculous behavior people engage in to get married, particularly when you try to make marriage the only source of sex, and to stay married. If you're making a utilitarian argument here, it's failing badly.
Just as we need not be slaves to exploitative hierarchies, destructive doctrine, and foolish sexual codes that lead to misery.
You should know that sounds pretty darned gay.
The difference is, at their best, Buddhists are thoroughly awesome, while even the best mainstream Christians will apologetically inform you that you're still going to hell if you don't believe as they do.
The internet would be a much better place if it was known we could each get the true name and address of one poster per year.
(please don't want some of me)
Nah--actually, I was thinking of someone else. I don't have a problem with you. That I know of. Do I?
Affirmative.
To snapper: There's an old Japanese saying- "The frog in the well does not know the sea.".
If I'm reading him correctly, snapper believes that people are harming themselves (and perhaps other members of society) through their actions, and that's why he's condemning that particular behavior. I don't think it's a very logically sound view without a host of unsupported assumptions, but that's a different sort of issue than "being a judgmental prick."
I strongly disagree with a lot of snapper's positions, but I don't dislike him; I think his heart is in the right place even if his head isn't.
So if he included a host of unsupported assumptions, then you would be with him?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main