j105

Forum Members
  • Content count

    967
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About j105

  • Rank
    Roster Player

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. This, never hurts to check. Some guys do well with a change of scenery.
  2. He always had the ability, or maybe potential is the better word, just not the drive. At least that's what it seemed like. They knew that risk when they selected him though. Hopefully the time away did some good.
  3. Good points. Vastly disagree with the Hageman part. Good players don't get cut, at least not usually. The guy was always an experiment and it failed. Bringing him back tells me that we are worried about DT because that is a Hail Mary move by the FO. Which brings us full circle with the Dolphins potentially snagging our guy. Hitting on late picks is fine, but why mortgage higher selections rather than later ones? If they do trade back into the second or third, the team just keep borrowing draft debt for seemingly no reason.
  4. Well that I expect, as well as the occasional player missing in regards to breakdown or scouting by the network but this was our first selection! I've never seen them just blatantly ignore it. They said the name, cut to commercial then didn't even bother to explain or look at the selection. Like wow.
  5. On a side note, anyone else really peeved at the draft coverage by NFL network this year? The norm is they go to commercial while we pick. This year they not only cut to commercial, they didn't even highlight or scout the pick at all! I have never witnessed that before. They came back from commercial and Rich went straight to the Redskins QB situation. Has a team ever had a first pick not analyzed like that????
  6. Let's be real, there are three groups every draft. The naysayers will shout doom and gloom and say that we made the worst choice they have ever seen(how this is possible every year escapes me.) Their NFL experience is typically several games of Madden each week. Meanwhile the draft homers will act like the FO are geniuses and that every pick is the next Peyton Manning at their positions. They will cherry pick scouting reports from some fat guy in his bathtub on a laptop who happened to love the player and writes about them at midnight each night. Then you have group 3 who actually want to analyze the picks despite realizing that without 3 years to judge it will be pointless. This is the group I want to hear from. But the others are welcome too lol. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So personally, I'm a bit skeptical about the direction we went. Let me tell you why: 1.) I think we have up way too much to move up. Now maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm thinking a second and third would have got us up to Detroit if we had sent out first as well. Obviously no one knows for sure, but if I'm a GM wanting to take a trade down I'll certainly make that trade. Move back a few spots to midround of first and gain two high level picks? No brainer 2.) I think the Dolphins chumped us. No way in my opinion Wilkins wasn't on our board. I think we chose to be aggressive at the wrong time. 3.) We have heard time and time again this is a depth draft along the lines, so why sacrifice our high round picks like that? Just doesn't add up to me So I guess I'm curious if anyone else is thinking on these levels. But that said, if we gained 2 8+ year starters then no one will bat an eye. I'm just peeved that we chose to be aggressive in an odd manner and spot. It seems out of character for TD. Thoughts?
  7. Ill attempt it. You are taking a life by your choice, instead of allowing the person to die naturally or by another cause had you not intervened. That is a fact(assuming this is intentional murder and not accidental.) You are in most cases hurting their family members by doing so, or anyone who cared for them(assuming there exist people who cared for this person, this will hurt them.) The dead person can no longer contribute to society. You are also losing any knowledge that person had. These appear to me to be facts in all but the most unusual circumstances, but I could be mistaken.
  8. That is my mistake. Its been a while since ive had a discussion like this. I am very use to the "government should model christian values above all else" form of argument from people. I had a man tell me once that atheists had no morals because they didn't have the bible to learn from.
  9. succinctly put. I would agree. How about this, I would use the bill of rights as an example. A government ran by generally accepted moral beliefs, or common sense, would be my preferred form of government. With no religious influence such as "under god, in god we trust" ect.
  10. Id argue it is close to being one. Your right though, I shouldn't state it as one. As I said, barring a mental disorder, most people whose parents taught them morals are not going to just start murdering. That is why you see more murders and assaults in poor, uneducated populaces than others. Circumstance can change that though. What was that movie where the kids wash up on the island and go all tribal and ****? Lord of the pigs or something? You cant touch it, but you can observe and infer.
  11. The post after that one sums it up.
  12. In regards to JDaveG, I think I understand what you are asking now after rereading that last post. Could be wrong though. First let me preface by saying I enjoy discussing these topics but by no means consider myself an expert. If you come to these talks with the expectation of "winning" you have already lost. Chances are no ones going to change your mind. You speak of relativism, which says that concepts have no absolute truth correct? I know little of this. It might be an accurate model for how I think but I couldn't tell you for sure. As far as morality goes, id say that is absolutely correct. There is no absolute truth. Because morality is individualistic. Look at murder for instance. Its all circumstantial. If a man breaks into your home and points a gun at you and your kids, and you kill him in retaliation, you were probably justified according to most peoples morals. Religious and non religious people are going to agree you were in the right. Very few are going to argue that the other man was in the right. Yet some would always say no matter what a person does they don't deserve to die. This is morality in a nutshell. Its too personal to be categorized other than general statements like "murder is wrong." So while there is no "absolute truth" there is a general truth most people adhere to. However, as for relating relativism to the prior discussion involving god, I'm not seeing it there. Facts are still facts when it comes to certain properties. Go in your backyard and touch a tree. That tree is a fact, there is no moral interpretation of said tree. That is an absolute truth and will not change. Even if you hacked it down its still a tree. So I don't really see where this is going. If the argument was that facts make it impossible to run a government without killing each other that makes no sense. We learn our morality as we grow up. That is a fact. Assuming all the parents in the world dont go wacko I think a goverment run using facts and knowledge would work just fine.
  13. Yes I did. Our moral compass comes directly from our upbringing and the empathy we feel. Your parents teach you(or should, anyway) that stealing/killing is wrong. Everyone's compass is different of course, but that is what it boils down to. How were you raised and your life experience. It is all part of evolution. If we didn't develop rules for not killing each other wed be no better then....ahem....monkeys.
  14. To me those question are not out of scientific reach. We just are not there yet. People used to think the word was flat and that beyond the clouds there was only heaven. We know now that space is indeed beyond the clouds and the Earth is round. We also learned that Gods do not control the weather but the seasons come from as tilted axis. If you had told previous cultures this they would have mocked you and said not only are you wrong but we will never know for sure. Yet now we do. They had faith and they were wrong. I have no doubt at some point technology will progress and help us answer these questions. Until then, it is indeed a guessing game, but the guesses have to be well informed IMO. The greatest question of all time is where do we come from. It demands the greatest amount of evidence. I need more than an old book written by mankind to make me believe that god is that answer.
  15. I disagree. Morals don't come from religious belief. If that were true all atheists would do is run around and kill/steal/murder as they have no higher power to "guide them." Morals are taught by parents and can also be ingrained in a person. Its why we feel empathy for others. You can look at the country where children mow each other down with AK-47s as an example of this. They were never taught right from wrong. Anyone with half a brain doesn't need a god to tell them killing/stealing is wrong. In fact sometimes its the opposite. Alot of the extremists the US face now belief their god is telling them to kill, remember? This is an extremely invalid argument which makes me wonder how those of faith operate if they have no free will and only know morals from their said faith.