The Hogster wrote:Thanks for clarifying the undetectable "exaggeration."
Obviously there are more than 4 black quarterbacks in the NFL. You'd have to know next to nothing about the NFL not to know that. If you still think I was being literal and precise, I guess there's not much else I can for you.
I assumed it was common knowledge that there were more than 4 black QBs in the NFL, and so a statement implying that wouldn't be taken literally. I was mistaken, and for that I apologize.
Michael Vick didn't start a single game.
So essentially what you did was cut my list down from 13 players including starters and backups to 5 to make your initial statement seem more correct. Look up hyperbole please, I think you have it confused for mistaken.
I was throwing you a bone, dude.
I know Vick didn't start last year, and neither is he (at this point) slated to be this year's starter. You'll notice I also kept Josh Freeman on the list, even though he won't be in the NFL 3 years from now. I could have just pared down the list to the significant black QBs, but that would have been controversial and rather subjective. So I decided to stick with the simplest criteria for the list: the two quarterbacks in question and other black staring QBs.
My point is that black quarterbacks — and when I say "quarterbacks" I mean names that 5 years after their career would make an average NFL fan think "oh, you mean that quarterback?" (HINT: that doesn't include players like Colt Brennan or Josh Freeman) — are uncommon, relative to the general ratio of black players in the NFL on the whole.
More superfluous blather. Scraping the bottom of the barrel? Josh Johnson and Seneca Wallace both STARTED games last year.
Not by choice. And yes, I'll assert that citing Seneca Wallace as a good example of a QB is scraping the bottom of the barrel, any day.
Look, my point on this narrow issue is that rhetorical tricks only hurt one's argument and don't advance the discussion. "Etc." means "and so on," as though the examples named are but members of a larger class. You named almost every single black quarterback that is anywhere on an NFL roster, and then said "etc." like you could have named at least several more. Instead you had one more you could have named, and maybe one other if you look hard enough.
It's a very narrow point, and one that will perhaps make no impact in this context.
Oh well. Anyway, this part of the debate — nitpicking over how many black QBs should 'count' and fine points of the use of 'etc'
— is so stupid that I'll let my contribution to it end it right here. (You can respond however you want to the above, of course.)
it's totally condescending to believe that of the other positive role models out there, kids just can't help but have their progress stymied by Mr. Vick. If Vick is hurting progress, it's because people who can influence the game (College Coaches, Athletic Directors, NFL GM's) look at Vick as a representative of "black" quarterbacks.
First, he can't help but be a representative of black quarterbacks. (To see this is to see Mr. Whitlock's point.) Second, Vick is trying very hard to live the back-home lifestyle on steroids with how much cash he brings in. Kids see that glamor and long for it in their own lives. That's a problem worth pointing out.
Again, totally off base here since Vick is a moron because he's a moron, not because of his race.
Cart before the horse. Whitlock is not saying Vick is a moron because of his race.
Quote:
Whitlock - who is black - wrote this article for the purpose of getting a reaction, period.
I don't think that's clear at all.
Really? You're kidding right? This is Whitlock, check his resume. He's the Mike Florio of ESPN, FOX. His job is to write for a reaction.
I know all about Whitlock. I hate most things that he writes. I think his posturing over getting a reaction is bull.
. . . . but. That doesn't mean that
this article can
only be race baiting nonsense. You have to take articles on their own merits, and think critically through the issues that are being raised. In this case, I think Whitlock . . . well, I can't bring myself to say that he got it right . . . let me just say: I think his thoughts here are collected and compelling.
And because his article has interesting content, I can't just deny that it has any merit simply because the author is known to fly off the handle. That would be dismissing something in an unwarranted fashion.
It means that your prior statement that Vick is more appreciated or beloved by the so-called "black community" than McNabb is totally misinformed. If you were watching football 6 years ago, you would remember that ESPN hired Rush Limbaugh who made a comment that McNabb was overrated by the media because the media wanted desperately to see a black quarterback do well. There was widespread backlash and support from the so-called "black community." Put simply, you're mistaken...or were you going for "hyperbole" that time?
Ah. No hyperbole, I simply didn't understand the connection you were trying to make. Yes, there was plenty of love for McNabb at the time of those statements . . . funny how it went away once he wasn't under an (alleged) racist attack, though.
Notice that in a list of starters the two are pretty close to representing half of the players. (2/6)
What's that supposed to mean?
. More pompous yet misguided advice - thanks nonetheless. I threw you a bone by using etc instead of including Jamarcus Russell since he's currently no longer in the NFL, and Pat White since he's not used as a regular QB. There are only 32 teams in the NFL, and I've named 15 black quarterbacks - most of whom STARTED or PLAYED more than Vick - the role model for the black community and its youth. 
