Hornhead
-
Posts
48 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
News
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Hornhead
-
I really can’t imagine the far-reaching benefits to be achieved by changing the team name. This country has recognized its sins, perhaps more than any other country. Just seems like folks trying to impose their will on others. You may have heard of a piece of “art” decades back called Piss Christ consisting of a crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist urine. Pretty offensive, mocking stuff you might say. However, I value liberty over my right to not be offended and have no desire to infringe upon the rights of the artist, although supporting him with tax dollars via the NEA is another story. I am a rare breed for sure, but that should help you understand my position more clearly.
-
Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying, similar to how you may be misinterpreting the use of Redskin as a term of derision, although you are not alone in that regard. So where does it stop? The author mentioned the Fighting Irish among the team names that should be on the hit list. The use of that mascot is far more cartoonish. With the last name O’Hara, I could have seized my opportunity to be offended but instead chose to have fun with it and even had a couple ND sweaters with the silly leprechaun on them. Guess I was just young and ignorant. I am frustrated how relatively insignificant issues draw so much focus when we have many weighty issues of far great importance to tackle. Battles like these show people are bored. Civil rights have been realized to such an extent that the movement is making up new rights and victim groups to remain relevant. Despite re-electing a black President, our country hasn’t been more divided in my lifetime. Clearly something has gone terribly wrong.
-
The intent of those team names is to demean a group. You appear to believe the same is true for Redskin when examples abound to the contrary, some from Native-Americans themselves! Odd that a person who says our culture needs a thicker skin with regard to these perceived offensives is the one who is busy looking to feel insulted. Sounds like you at least reluctantly agree then that nicknames did nothing to destroy the culture. I can only guess such a mindless reflex resulted from too much exposure to one of our many overpriced institutions of Leftism (aka university).
-
Sounds like a page straight out of the PC playbook. Okay, what evidence exist showing team nicknames destroy the cultures from which they were adopted? Per the article, the Native-American culture as a whole takes no offense and regards the Redskin name with pride. They understand the connotation it holds with regard to fighting ability and courage. The push for change comes primarily from white Leftists with an insatiable appetite for uncovering these "offenses" and transforming society to meet their vision. The resulting victim groups created can often be manipulated or solidified into thinking the Left serves to protect them from the oppressive desires of the Right.
-
He makes the perfectly valid argument that offense can be taken to so many things. We have become such a thin-skinned culture because of the relatively new idea that that people should be able to go through life without being offended. And if you aren't offended, allow us to free you of your ignorance. How bizarre that those who fail to recognize and fight legitimate evil and injustice construct their own brand of it (aka political correctness). Here's another test. Go into a white family's home and comment about the cute whites sitting on the couch. Context makes all the difference.
-
Tyler Mason's great story on Tanner Vavra
Hornhead replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Allow simple mathematics to explain: One eye - peripheral vision - distractions + focus > depth perception. Q.E.D. -
The “nobody with a brain” comment was foolish and unfortunately the language of debate these days. The civility of discourse (for now) exceeds that of BYTO in its final years, but the generosity in labeling folks crazy, mentally challenged, etc needs adjusting if the assessors seek to retain any credibility. If you don’t agree with views of another, so be it. Intelligent, decent people can have opposing views. I understand the opposition to my views very well. They make sense on the surface and may have once been my own positions. However, shallowness in thought and depth of emotion permeate many of those stances. I have emotions too and compassion for homosexuals. But these things called values, or standards if you prefer, come first. Values should be held in greater esteem than personal preference, popular opinion, and compassion which, as an overarching standard, quite often produces detrimental consequences. Out of curiosity, where does Benghazi rate in comparison to Abu Ghraib on the scandal scale?
-
I say now with confidence there will be no turning back once that bridge is crossed. Common sense tells me a mother and father is the ideal. Some studies will support me and others won't. People will believe what they want and folks that point to studies (no matter how true) showing same-sex child rearing as inferior will be shouted down as homophobic. Serious debate will be quashed just as it is becoming with same-sex marriage.
-
I don’t doubt you, but reason will not be invited to the table. Think of those Catholic adoption agencies that were closed rather than permitted to favor male-female couples. Equality, not welfare of the kids, was the primary value. No reason to believe equality would not continue to reign supreme regardless of what may come from same-sex couple child rearing.
-
Discussion is pointless as compassion and equality will trump any study results. I can’t imagine the slightest possibility in 30 years that a policy would exist giving preference to hetero over same-sex couples because studies show kids are not as well-adjusted when they don’t have a father and mother. Such results would simply be rejected or ignored because they do not comport with political correctness, assuming that morally void dragon still roams free.
-
Male-female defined every definition of marriage throughout secular history. Debate of these issues took place during the time of Christ. Not exactly treading new moral ground here.
-
Overturning thousands of years of unquestioned tradition until very recently demands compelling reasons for redefining marriage to something other than male-female. I don’t see them. Preserving order far supersedes encouraging moral behavior in the legal realm. I view right and wrong independent of law, time, and popular opinion. We seem to differ in this regard. As for evolving morality, what new moral ground has been broken in the last 1,000 years? Women's suffrage comes to mind, but the Bible teaches equality among the sexes in God's eyes, although with different roles. Pretty radical stuff in its time.
-
Dig a little deeper and you will see there is little distinction between reason and the heart. Reason begets “rationalization” which can lead to virtually any behavior, moral or not. I'll agree that "because this is the way we've always done it" is not valid reasoning in itself. But that doesn't invalidate the precedent either. Are we saying today that the morality of all previous human history was defective because they did not support same-sex marriage? Such a stance requires a very elevated sense of one's self morality.
-
I've never heard of appeal to tradition as a basic fallacy. I recall asking on the previous board to what you appeal. I believe the answer was . . . your heart. A society consisting of each doing what is right in his own eyes will not stand. We are not talking about reliance on a family tradition of eating tofurkey on Thanksgiving. This is a total disregard of all religious AND secular tradition throughout human history. That's a pretty big deal just so a tiny fraction of the population can obtain rights that can easily be granted to a same-sex couples without redefining marriage.
-
I wish folks would de-emphasize the procreation aspect of marriage when there are far better arguments. By this logic the infertile and elderly have no place in marriage. The 4,000+ year definition holds greater sway. Folks like to draw comparisons with slavery and racism as wrongs in history that needed righting, and that same-sex marriage is part of this continuum. While many of history's great moral leaders spoke in favor of free societies and equality among the races, none ever spoke in favor of same-sex marriage. Not until recently has anyone deemed "awful" the belief of marriage as male-female. Do people forget this was Obama's stance just one year ago? Why wasn't he bashed at a small-minded hater?
-
Your logic is pretty easy to follow. But permitting adoption by same-sex couples can be accomplished without redefining marriage. Why can’t we have agencies that specifically cater to such couples? Interesting side note. Many longstanding religious agencies were taken out of the adoption business because they were forced to adhere to new laws prohibiting discrimination with regard to sexual-orientation. Catholic leaders requested a religious exemption. They were denied and forced to shut their doors or disregard their religious beliefs. In the politicians’ minds, and probably those of most people, better for the children to be orphans than not have a chance of being placed with a same-sex couple. Soon, any anytime marriage is mentioned, you risk being accused of discrimination if same-sex couples are not brought into the conversation. In 2008, e-Harmony was legally forced to create a site that catered to homosexuals or go out of business. How's that for tolerance? Religious beliefs will only come increasingly under attack. We are also saying that gender is interchangeable, basically meaningless. No wonder we are seeing more kids confused about their gender. This is some of the damage I see.
-
Those problems are still prevalent among non-polygamous marriages too. We all see plenty of women who willingly marry creeps. Anyhow, what if a woman wants to marry two men, or three men want to marry each other? In a land of 316 million, such cases are certainly out there. What leg do we have to stand on when those people come knocking to demand their rights? I can already see people being labeled Islamophobes since multiple wives are more common in that culture. I’d be interested in the source for your stats, because I wouldn't be surprised in the least if siblings in their mid-20’s produced children as healthy as a couples in their mid-40s. Is that your only objection? I agree with Ultima Ratio that support for redefining marriage is largely emotional, although Brock shows a more practical approach than most. But if principle is the basis, I'd like to know what it is. I've heard "love" mentioned, but we don't allow polygamy regardless of how much love is involved. The subject of "rights" is brought up, but California withholds no rights and the fight here is as fervent as anywhere. Please let me know what I'm missing.
-
Having a child later in life comes with increased medical risks too, but I don’t hear the outcry against that. And the historical share of subjugation, abuse, and incest found in traditional marriage cannot be ignored. More compelling arguments than these are required if further expansion of marriage is to be prevented.
-
Can't tell if this is serious, but consider the argument is well underway that people should have a right to choose their gender. One can even be male at school/work and female at home. Gender will be considered a fluid concept. Is it awful to support a standard by which we define male and female? The reason I ask is that union of male and female is as fundamental to marriage as the union of oxygen and hydrogen atoms is to water. Speaking of threesomes, no reason polygamy should not also be a civil right now.
-
Maybe not. I lost all hope when Harvin went down, yet they were able to enjoy good success without him. Now if I'm wrong and Ponder actually develops into a top 20 QB, it will be a good 2013.
-
So...uh....does this team actually have a uh....chance?
Hornhead replied to DaveW's topic in Minnesota Vikings Talk
History shows this to be a favorable matchup for AD. The running game should hold up in the elements so offense shouldn't be a problem as long as turnovers are avoided. This style can also chew up the clock and shorten the game which is key against a top offense. The defense needs to come up big with a D-line that is capable of putting pressure on Rodgers to give the secondary a chance. Oh, and please tackle on special teams! The Pack losing at home with a big-game QB seems unlikely against a merely above average team that has peaked at the right time. The Vikes have beaten their share of odds this year, so just maybe they keep on rolling. -
Peterson doing his thing while Ponder unfortunately does his. I'd be much more optimistic with Harvin out there, but the defense seems to be coming on at the right time. Never imagined this game would mean anything for the Vikes.
-
Sad to see the site go the way of the dodo. Much thanks to RP and others for all the effort over the years. Surely the current state of the Twins played some role, but I'm sure the BYTO spirit will live on.