NFL Football

[jazzcyclist]

The previously apolitical Rodgers has decided that now is a good time to become a culture warrior and invoke the name of MLK. in the process.

“I’m not some sort of anti-vax, flat-earther, I believe strongly in bodily autonomy and the ability to make choices for your body, not to have to acquiesce to some sort of woke culture or crazed individuals who say you have to do something. Some of the rules are not based in science at all. They’re based purely in trying to out and shame people. The great MLK said, ‘You have a moral obligation to object to unjust rules and rules that make no sense,’”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/05/sports/football/coronavirus-aaron-rodgers.html

[Conor Dary]

I don't think Rodgers did himself any favors today with his "clarification" comments and he sounds as if he's closer to Ms. Patrick's thinking than he is to most of the medical community.

Indeed....the 2 of them are exactly alike...

What a dumb interview.

[jazzcyclist]

His problem is that unlike the other anti-vaxxers, he lacked the courage of his convictions to admit that he was an anti-vaxxer from the beginning. And I don't by his allergy bs because surely he would have disclosed that to the NFL as soon as the vaccine mandate came down if that were true. The most ridiculous thing he said is that he followed most of the protocols except for the ones he said "are not based on science at all but based purely in trying to out and shame people". such as wearing masks.

[DrJay]

He really is as dumb as a sack of hammers.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/05/sport/aaron-rodgers-packers/index.html

[jazzcyclist]

He really is as dumb as a sack of hammers.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/05/sport...ers/index.html

And he's a liar on top of that.

Reporter: "Are you vaccinated?"

Rodgers: "Yes, I'm immunized."

[Davidokun]

At best, Rodgers's attempt to quote King fell incomplete:

One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Source: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Article...irmingham.html

[Adam$]

"He really is as dumb as a sack of hammers"
But he tests well: good SAT's. GB probably could have got two premier picks and couple of others if they moved him last spring. Now he'll likely be a pain in the backside all season then leave in spring'02 (i think he's then unrestricted). Good luck to the second year QB as his backup on Sunday.

[NotDutra5]

His problem is that unlike the other anti-vaxxers, he lacked the courage of his convictions to admit that he was an anti-vaxxer from the beginning. And I don't by his allergy bs because surely he would have disclosed that to the NFL as soon as the vaccine mandate came down if that were true. The most ridiculous thing he said is that he followed most of the protocols except for the ones he said "are not based on science at all but based purely in trying to out and shame people". such as wearing masks.

Lamar Jackson and Kirk Cousins, for two, have stated they haven't and/or won't vaccinate themselves and I don't know of any backlash against them. Maybe a little vs. Cousins. Rodgers, I'm going to hypothesize may have been protecting his endorsement career by being intentionally evasive....and what set of reporters took that answer and didn't follow up?...when he said he'd been immunized. Then today Rodgers said it "wasn't a ruse". Well...yeah Aaron it was.

The invocation of Joe Rogan as a source going beyond entertainment and venturing into medical opinions should have been his first clue that he may be headed down the wrong path. Now excuse me while I make a call to Conan O'Brien to see if he thinks the soreness in my left knee should be surgically repaired.

As an aside...the Jeopardy decision makers must be breathing a sigh of relief if he was ever a serious candidate there...which I doubt.

[Davidokun]

As an aside...the Jeopardy decision makers must be breathing a sigh of relief if he was ever a serious candidate there...which I doubt.

On the other hand, Jake from State Farm must be screaming bloody murder.

[jazzcyclist]

Is Rodgers a pathological liar?

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-denies-...220701783.html

[Pego]

I have been a Cheesehead Packers fan for half a century and used to think of Rodgers as an intelligent, knowledgeable person. For the past 18 months or so, it has been one neverending drama. First his pouting over not drafting WRs with early picks, then drafting a future QB, then pouting over his treatment by the Packers powers-that-be, now this. Not only lying, but "substituting" a proven vaccine with snake oil (ivermectin, homeopathy). I guess, I am now a member of the "woke mob", out to persecute him.
The Packers should attempt to trade him and ride with Jordan Love. He has become even more toxic for the organization than Favre did before him.

[bambam1729]

His problem is that unlike the other anti-vaxxers, he lacked the courage of his convictions to admit that he was an anti-vaxxer from the beginning. And I don't by his allergy bs because surely he would have disclosed that to the NFL as soon as the vaccine mandate came down if that were true. The most ridiculous thing he said is that he followed most of the protocols except for the ones he said "are not based on science at all but based purely in trying to out and shame people". such as wearing masks.

As DrJay, schigh, Pego, and the other MDs on this board will surely confirm, most people who claim to have an "allergy" to some obscure medicine or treatment, really do not have an allergy. They may not like the side effects of the treatment, but that is a not a true "allergic" reaction. A true allergic reaction, termed anaphylaxis, can be a life-threatening situation. I had one such situation in practice. I gave a woman a shot in her shoulder and she had an anaphylactic reaction to the local anaesthetic in the shot - she didn't know she was allergic to it, and I didn't know either (obviously). I had to intubate her in the office - very scary. Fortunately, all turned out well, and she had to be tested to determine what caused the reaction.

[Pego]

As DrJay, schigh, Pego, and the other MDs on this board will surely confirm, most people who claim to have an "allergy" to some obscure medicine or treatment, really do not have an allergy. They may not like the side effects of the treatment, but that is a not a true "allergic" reaction. A true allergic reaction, termed anaphylaxis, can be a life-threatening situation. I had one such situation in practice. I gave a woman a shot in her shoulder and she had an anaphylactic reaction to the local anaesthetic in the shot - she didn't know she was allergic to it, and I didn't know either (obviously). I had to intubate her in the office - very scary. Fortunately, all turned out well, and she had to be tested to determine what caused the reaction.

Good point, bambam. Mine, not quite as scary episode, was a patient with a recent onset of seizures that developed a Stevens-Johnson's syndrome due to Dilantin. Fortunately, no respiratory distress.

[gh]

As Scott Ostler puts it, Rodgers is now "on vaxcation"

[bambam1729]

Good point, bambam. Mine, not quite as scary episode, was a patient with a recent onset of seizures that developed a Stevens-Johnson's syndrome due to Dilantin. Fortunately, no respiratory distress.

I don't know, Pego - Stevens-Johnson Syndrome is pretty scary to me, and usually so unexpected.