If you don't like Tim Tebow as a person....who is the ideal sports role model?

[EKnight]

^^ I can see that, however you might be taking a hard line stance when it's a much grayer issue.  Would you kill someone who was trying to kill multiple people in your family?  I certainly would.  I wouldn't say that I'm any less admirable because of it.

I see that it's not the same as war, but it's logic is on the same spectrum.

No. I wouldn't. Taking a life is wrong. The circumstance doesn't change that for me. -EK

[Dave Gray]

^ Fair enough.  I guess that ends this debate.

[SportsChick]

I was watching SportsCenter on Sunday (Maybe NFL Countdown) and there was a story about Braylon Edwards and a scholarship he set up his rookie year - he picked 100 8th graders who had applied and if they graduated with XXX GPA, XX Service Hours etc. they would get $10,000 for college.

He was a nice story with the now college kids thanking him (they said 78 of the 100 made the requirements). He wants to do it again this year for 8th graders.

[Cathal]

No. I wouldn't. Taking a life is wrong. The circumstance doesn't change that for me. -EK

Wow. That's a pretty hard-line position you're holding on to. I don't know if that's admirable or sick, especially when it comes to your family. But, that pretty much does end that debate y'all were having.

[Phishfan]

No. I wouldn't. Taking a life is wrong. The circumstance doesn't change that for me. -EK

I'm not trying to debate you on this at all. I'm just throwing out my two cents here. I cannot understand how anyone would take this position. I understand it is yours to have, I just could not fathom excluding the possibility of killing in order to save my own family.

[EKnight]

They are innumerable ways to incapacitate a person. Seeing the world in such black and white terms as "kill or be killed" is lunacy. It is, in fact, possible to defend yourself and your loved ones without killing another person. I don't understand not being able to see that. It is this kind of extremist thinking that leads to most of the cruelty and harshness in the world. Whatever means you would use to kill an attacker can also be used to subdue him/her. Believing the only option is to kill the person is not a particularly healthy point of view. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

EKnight, while I won't debate your opinion on the perceived necessity of killing, I'll just say this:  if you believe that it was immoral for Americans to bear arms against Germany and Japan in WW2 (in what was necessarily a kill-or-be-killed scenario, open war) then you are in the extreme minority of the American population, and your perspective of Tillman as a role model reflects that.

[bsmooth]

The daisies thing was clearly sarcasm. Explain to me who in his right mind joins the military without the belief he will be trained to kill someone. What part of that is lacking comprehension? To be OK with invading one land and killing its people but not others doesn't make his behavior something I'm ok with. -EK

The government of Afghanistan openly allowed a known terrorist group to set up camps within its borders to train believers to attack western countries and their allies. This group attacked us and we wanted the leadership extradited to us for trial. They said no, so we attacked both the terrorist group and the government backing them for the 9/11 attacks.
This is why Tillman was okay with going to Afghanistan( where he was killed/murdered? by friendly fire) but thought the war in Iraq was total bullshit and a lie.
Also Tillman enlisted, completed Basic Training and RIP and was stationed at Ft Lewis a year before we went to Iraq. So he assumed he would be going to Afghanistan and not Iraq as we already had troops in Afghanistan.
Facts are your friend.

[bsmooth]

They are innumerable ways to incapacitate a person. Seeing the world in such black and white terms as "kill or be killed" is lunacy. It is, in fact, possible to defend yourself and your loved ones without killing another person. I don't understand not being able to see that. It is this kind of extremist thinking that leads to most of the cruelty and harshness in the world. Whatever means you would use to kill an attacker can also be used to subdue him/her. Believing the only option is to kill the person is not a particularly healthy point of view. -EK

If you have training, sure. But for the majority of people in the world who have no martial or combat training, when faced with the possibility of serious injury or death to themselves or their family, they have two choice: Fight or Flight.
This is why we as a civilized society, along with many other countries, have established a clearly defined legal thresh-hold for instances such as this.
Also while there are many ways to incapacitate a person, they are not always effective in every scenario, and you usually only get one shot. If it does not work, then you may very well find yourself locked up with an angry person in a fight to the death.
Your stance on this issue makes me laugh, and it can be summed up in a great quote by Nietzsche:
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
 

[shamrock]

So let me get this straight,someone breaks into your home knowing full well that you and your family are in there asleep(which would lead me to believe that person is looking to do more than steal something),and you would only "incapacitate" him???
Why...........so he can go to prison for a few years,get all pumped up with weights,make some new even nastier friends and then get out and come hunt you down for putting him there? I don't think so.
I consider myself a fairly devout Roman Catholic,I attend mass every Sunday,but faced with the scenario I mentioned above,Mr. intruder would meet Mr. 9mm. or Mr. mossberg,whichever I could get my hands on first.And if he were lucky enough to be only incapacitated,it would be because I was half asleep and my aim was off.

BTW,when you join any branch of the service,you take an oath to defend this country and to do your duty.You can not like or disagree with policy all you want,but in the end,you go where you are sent and do your job,which does mean having to kill people that are trying to kill you.

[EKnight]

Spider- I don't know how much of a minority I'm in, but I do know this: the extremist stance taken by the US in WWII led to the death of over 200 THOUSAND innocent men, women, and children in an act so horrific no country has used the technology since then.

BSmooth- apparently you missed the powerlifting thread. Calling me a weakling shows that you're not only blind but too insecure to stick to the topic at hand and once again (didn't you learn anything in the other thread when your post was deleted?) resort to attacking me as a person. I find it more weak your clear lack of emotional control.

As for the rest of you, I don't know what to tell you. I believe taking a life is wrong. There's nothing you can say that will change that. Ever. I don't know why that seems to piss some of you off so much, but you don't see me passing judgement on any of you for believing what you want. Stop wasting your time. I'm 37 years old; I've likely seen and done more in my life than many of you, and if you think that somehow your ranting on the Internet is going to change my beliefs that took 37 years to develop, you're acting incredibly self-important. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

So then, to be ideologically consistent, I presume that you are opposed to the American colonists' use of deadly force to obtain independence from Britain, as well as the Union's use of deadly force to prevent the secession of the South and the continuation of slavery.

I am also forced to wonder: if, in your amazing THIRTY-SEVEN years of life, you've already learned and experienced so much that your beliefs are incapable of being swayed by mere Internet ranting, why are you wasting your time on Internet message boards?  Is it solely so that you may impart your wisdom on the rest of us?

The only thing missing from your post is a clip of Mike Gundy screaming, "I'm a MAN!  I'm FORTY!"

[Dave Gray]

Please move all justification of murder talk to the appropriate thread in off-topic.  We're getting off of Tim Tebow, here.

[Spider-Dan]

With respect, the topic is about role models, not just Tim Tebow.  And while you can argue that EKnight's personal belief system is not strictly topical, the discussion of whether or not Pat Tillman should be disqualified as a role model because of his military service is as relevant as any other point in this thread.

The idea that a soldier who kills an enemy combatant* in a time of war should not be considered a role model would disqualify many, if not most, of the recipients of the United States' highest honors.  Furthermore, to continue this logic, generals and commanders-in-chief who order their armies to engage (and kill) the enemy should be held equally responsible from an ethical standpoint.  Such a position would disqualify people such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln from consideration as "role models."

This position is, to put it mildly, an extreme outlier in the American consciousness.

*notwithstanding the argument of whether or not persons are properly classified as "enemy combatants," EKnight's position is that it is wrong to take the life of even an accurately classified enemy combatant.

[bsmooth]

Spider- I don't know how much of a minority I'm in, but I do know this: the extremist stance taken by the US in WWII led to the death of over 200 THOUSAND innocent men, women, and children in an act so horrific no country has used the technology since then.

BSmooth- apparently you missed the powerlifting thread. Calling me a weakling shows that you're not only blind but too insecure to stick to the topic at hand and once again (didn't you learn anything in the other thread when your post was deleted?) resort to attacking me as a person. I find it more weak your clear lack of emotional control.

As for the rest of you, I don't know what to tell you. I believe taking a life is wrong. There's nothing you can say that will change that. Ever. I don't know why that seems to piss some of you off so much, but you don't see me passing judgement on any of you for believing what you want. Stop wasting your time. I'm 37 years old; I've likely seen and done more in my life than many of you, and if you think that somehow your ranting on the Internet is going to change my beliefs that took 37 years to develop, you're acting incredibly self-important. -EK

Haha, you are going to talk about insecurity, and then talk about your power lifting. Power lifting means you are strong physically. There are other definitions of being weak. The quotation is very clear in its meaning. People who think they are good because they never resort to using violence ever( hence no claws) are fools. Just because this meaning has eluded you, does not make it a person attack. You do not even see the hypocrisy in your stance that you live in a country surrounded by men and women who daily go to work to prevent you from having to worry about having to kill someone, yet you think they are morally wrong while at the same time enjoying the fruits of their labors. Here is another of my favorite quotes that applies to you too: " "Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night
because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
I also notice you never touched the rest of that whole post about Tillman and your factual errors, nor where I talked about people who have training( do not know if this applies to you or not) such as Maine does and the ability to resolve potential hostile situations with less than lethal solutions as opposed to the average person who does not have any training or the desire to learn how to protect themselves and loved ones( no claws again). So that when presented with a hostile situation tend to use maximum force to try and survive.
What is funny is that your belief that no life should be taken is a maxim that the majority of society has lived with for thousands of years. But they have also managed to come to the realization that while this is a noble ideas, there comes a time where a life needs to be taken for the long term health of the whole society.