Logic

Amen. Put it this way: If there's even a 10% chance that wearing a mask will help to slow or prevent the spread of the virus -- and make no mistake, the likelihood of masks helping in this regard is much higher -- I'm doing it. To refuse to wear a mask is to openly declare "I don't care about you or your health. My comfort is more important than your life". Period. That's all there is to it. Put aside your refusal to believe in science, your selfishness, your sense of entitlement, and just for ONE SECOND think about "we" rather than "me". It's a tiny scrap of cloth over your mouth for a few months, for Chrissakes. Grow up, stop being an ass, and do what needs to be done for the increased safety and health of our population, you self-centered dingbats!

Well I know I'M not going to question the expertise of....*checks notes*....Twitter personality Savanah Hernandez? This nonsense has already been debunked. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/06/13/masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-coronavirus-studies-say-but-wearing-them-still-a-political-issue/#25f1126b604e A new review published in The Lancet looked at 172 observational studies and found that masks are effective in many settings in preventing the spread of the coronavirus (though the results cannot be treated with absolute certainty since they were not obtained through randomized trials, the Washington Post notes). Another recent study found that wearing a mask was the most effective way to reduce the transmission of the virus.

Von Miller, 17 days after testing positive, said he still felt like his lungs were not back to their normal capacity. And he's a lean, muscled up pass rusher. Think about the offensive linemen. Think about the coaches in their 70s. Think about people shaped like Andy Reid. That is simply not true. The increase in positive tests is NOT solely due to increased testing. Positive cases ARE on the rise. Community spread IS on the rise. People pretending that things are improving, rather than re-escalating, have their heads in the sand. There has been drastically less increase in positive COVID cases in states where large protests occurred (like Minnesota and Oregon, for instance) than in states that simply re-opened early and without mask-wearing mandates. Go compare Arizona, Florida, and Texas to Minnesota, Oregon, and DC and tell me what you see.

Breaking News: Baby Goodwin placed on IR, then will skip following season to train for the olympics. [it's a joke. Congrats to the proud new parents. Many happy returns.]

Absolute nonsense. An utter lie.

66 pages. Bills fans are bonkers.

Accusing me of "thinking I'm smarter than everyone else" certainly feels like malice. It also seems like the pot calling the kettle black. Alas...

Refusing to read someone's response to you, insisting on replying to it anyway, then indicating you won't respond to any further replies to you, either. Yep, certainly SEEMS like reasonable, mature, non-hostile discourse. Feel free to @ me if you want to discuss the original topic at any point, rather than continuing to stubbornly insert your own topic of choice and respond dismissively to anyone who dares to disagree.

Why even feed into the hijacking of this thread by people who clearly have no interest in discussing its original subject? Why facilitate and acquiesce to the apparent desire to re-direct a perfectly reasonable and worthy conversation toward subjects which have very little --if anything at all-- to do with what was originally being discussed? Collectivism vs Individualism is a completely different topic than "the impact of violence on revolutions".

Your hostility toward others and your desire to take this discussion in a completely different direction than the one intended by the OP are bizarre. This thread is about the impact of violence on revolutionary movements, and you want to come in here talking about socialism and "my desired form of government"? As if you even KNOW what my desired form of government is, or as if it has ANY impact on what was originally being discussed? If you want to talk about the comparative merits of direct action vs peaceful protest, or of the impact of violence on revolutions, I'm all for it. If you want to continue down the path of condescension, arrogance, rudeness, and completely changing the subject to what YOU want to talk about, I'm out. Good day to you.

I edited my statement because I realized that I, too, was contributing to changing the subject from what the OP intended, by shifting the conversation from violence in revolutions to "left vs right". I'm trying to make a more concerted effort these days not to hijack threads and have them go off in directions unrelated to the OP's intent.

I assume this is your way of outing yourself as both ignorant AND selfish?

Weird. Here I was under the impression that MANY of the freedoms we enjoy today came as a result of revolutions, rebellions, and strikes, put together most often by what you'd refer to as "collectivists". I guess revolutionaries all over the world should just quit trying to work towards a better, more equitable world, since their efforts have historically never achieved anything whatsoever. Besides, it's quite clear that modern, late stage capitalist, materialism-worshipping America is doing just fine in all respects and doesn't require any change anyway. Our American individualism is working ESPECIALLY well as it relates to COVID-19.

The topic at hand is "the place of violence in revolutions", not "why you think leftists and socialists are wrong". I'm sure there are plenty of people in the PPP that would love to take potshots at leftists, if that's what you're after.

I’m not really sure what your point even is. This thread is about football players taking precautions to avoid COVID infection. If you think this is all very simple and easy to figure out and that there’s just DEFINITELY going to be an NFL season, I’d suggest that your head is in the sand, and your position is foolhardy. Ditto if you think it’s as simple as just quarantining ONE player (as the recent infection of TWENTY THREE Clemson players shows). If you want to discuss these matters like an adult, great. If you want to be confrontational and go wildly off topic, save it.

The point of nonviolence is to build a floor, a strong new floor, beneath which we can no longer sink. A platform which stands a few feet above napalm, torture, exploitation, poison gas, A and H bombs, the works. Give man a decent place to stand. - Joan Baez Without a direct action expression of it, nonviolence, to my mind, is meaningless. -Mahatma Gandhi 1869-1948 I want to point out also that there is a subtle but important difference between non-violent resistance and "peaceful protest". Peaceful protest, if it is just marching around in circles or sitting on the lawn with signs, is unlikely to affect change. Non-violent resistance, on other hand -- actions which, without inflicting violence, disrupt the system (traffic, commerce, etc), usually do more to affect change. To use your example of the 60s Civil Rights struggle: It wasn't peaceful protest that changed anything. It was the images of black Americans being beaten, sprayed with fire hoses, and having dogs unleashed on them, that garnered the sympathies and attentions of most Americans. And the actions that brought about those violent repercussions were typically non-violent, disruptive, direct actions. Furthermore, it was on the seventh night of nationwide riots resulting from Martin Luther King's assassination that the Civil Rights bill was finally signed. I'm not advocating for riots, mind you, though I do advocate for non-violent, disruptive, direct action. There is value in both "sides" of the revolution, I suppose: The Civil Rights struggle needed Martin AND Malcolm. It's a very interesting, and age-old question. How much direct action is needed for a revolution to succeed?

Well...this is the problem. It's not just THEMSELVES. If player X gets COVID, and maybe doesn't know it because he's asymptomatic, and then goes out to party that night -- a very realistic scenario for invincible-feeling rich 20-somethings -- he can then spread it to a huge number of people. If it were just "taking responsibility for one's self", it would be a whole different matter. Because of how easily the virus spreads, the reality is that you have responsibility to your community.

When it comes to how it affects the team/sport, symptoms are irrelevant. They can still spread the disease and, thus, still have to be quarantined and be unavailable to practice or play for two weeks. If Josh Allen tests positive for COVID the night before the Chiefs game but has no symptoms, guess what? It’s still two weeks of quarantine.

You may have read it, but perhaps you failed to comprehend it. The NFLPA is suggesting that players not engage in PRIVATE, on-their-own practice sessions, outside of the scope of the official NFL offseason activities. As such, your comment about "giving money back" for "practices they are not attending" makes no sense and has no relevance whatsoever.

Did you read the article? I'm gonna go ahead and guess you did not.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/06/20/nflpa-recommends-that-players-stop-practicing-together/ The NFL had no offseason workouts in 2020, but plenty of players have worked out together on their own. The NFL Players Association officially has asked them to stop. “Please be advised that it is our consensus medical opinion that in light of the increase in COVID-19 cases in certain states that no players should be engaged in practicing together in private workouts,” Dr. Thom Mayer, the NFLPA medical director, said in an email to all players, a copy of which PFT has obtained....

Basically, as players return to team facilities over the next couple of months, we just need to brace ourselves for the fact that likely all 32 teams will have positive COVID tests. There are 90 players on each roster. The likelihood that ZERO players test positive on any given team is extremely low. It doesn't mean everything is going to shut down or that there won't be a season, necessarily -- although it COULD mean those things. Andrew Brandt said it well on Twitter: The primary factor in whether or not we have a 2020 NFL season will be the extent of the NFL owners' greed, and how they weigh the opportunity cost of profits vs safety of their players, coaching and support staffs, and fans. The other thing I could see playing a major role is if a player or coach ends up being hospitalized or dying from COVID. Bear in mind that many coaches are solidly in the "at risk" group, as are a fair amount of offensive linemen. There is a certain point past which even the money-obsessed owners will not be able to justify moving forward with a season.

Just wanted to chime in and thank both @Thurman#1 and @Shaw66 for their excellent posts and say that I think both are at least partly correct. Shaw is correct in saying that the biggest improvement will likely come from Allen learning to read, process, and understand defenses better. Thurm is correct in saying that inconsistency in mechanics really hinders Allen. Indeed, on some plays he does everything just exactly right, and the result is usually a pinpoint laser that hits his receiver in the chest. However, on the plays where his accuracy is off, where his ball sails 3 feet past his receiver's outstretched hand, you can almost ALWAYS watch the replay back and see that this body was in a wonky position. He either didn't "set the hallway" properly, didn't step into his throw, didn't transfer his weight efficiently, etc, etc. I don't pretend to know the finer points of quarterback mechanics, but I CAN see when a quarterback's body doesn't look quite right when he throws it. Here is a great example. Look at the Cowboys throw (even though he's on the move), and look at the Dolphins throw. You can see on that second throw what "poor mechanics" look like in action. It's THOSE types of throws that won't improve even if he learns to read defenses better. Even when he reads the coverage correctly and picks the right target, he needs to be able to get the ball there with consistency. Allen will always miss some throws, as all quarterbacks do. He'll never be perfect. But I DO believe that there's merit to the idea that an improvement in the consistency of his mechanics will lead to an overall much more productive version of Josh Allen. If he JUST improved his throwing consistency or JUST improved his reading of defenses, I think he'd become a consistently league average level passer who, paired with this defense, can win you 9-10 games a year. If he does BOTH of these things, I believe he will become a legitimate "Franchise QB" who can win you ballgames on his own and compete for Lombardi trophies. I feel strongly that both the reading of defenses AND the improvement of consistency in throwing mechanics are necessary for Allen to reach his lofty ceiling, and I personally feel that the importance of each is closer to 50/50 than 80/20.

Do you agree that his primary/best attributes are his run stopping and blitzing abilities, and not so much his pass coverage abilities, either in man or zone?