Exactly..., And neither Brees, Thomas nor Jenkins are in need of “parents telling them what they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do”. It’s their confrontation, they said they handled it, Period. Is it possible that emotions and commentary become more heated in the future? Sure, if they continue losing. Winning, regardless of who is at the QB is a cure-all for what ails the locker room.

lol at the straw man argument. My friend, this is a public forum full of opinions, it’s not moderated as to “form” or “function” in our speech, it’s not peer reviewed such that experts analyze our statements. It’s very simply..., opinions. And anybody who brings “OJ” into a discussion, while simultaneously calling another out over usage of informal fallacious speak fails to abide by the same set of rules he expects from others.

Bottom line, what other ppl do wrt their interpersonal relationships ain’t none of my business. Doubly so for royalty, Hollywood elites and professional athletes. I’m just not a pitchforker. But..., to each their own.

You don't seem to understand what I even mean by "straw man". It's not about a "form of speech". I don't care if you write like Shakespeare, or big bubba down the street. Your straw man was arguing that Neither Thomas nor Jenkins has advocated for violence, when that is not the argument anyone was making. My OJ comment was very clearly an analogy (which I specifically stated) to explain how one doesn't have to "be there" in order to draw certain conclusions. I thought of the most likely real life situation that I thought you'd be familiar with to make an analogy. I don't think that's rocket science, friend. And I think you knew exactly what I was doing. So, with all due respect, I'd appreciate it if you'd spare me the drivel about this being a public forum, and not peer reviewed, and holding people to a different standard than myself. None of that had anything to do with what I said.

One standard, apply it to both sides of that commentary. Did free speech, on either side encourage violence? The answer is no, from everything I’ve read. Therefore, it’s my belief neither Thomas or Jenkins didn’t need to address that behind doors, I wouldn’t have. That is not a “straw man”..., in any way, shape or form. The entire discussion revolves around the commentary from Jenkins and Thomas, it’s 100% proper to ask the very simple question:

“Did either side encourage violence through their social media platforms?”

Spare me the drivel about “straw- man” arguments, lol. Everything you’ve ever stated is some form of formal/informal fallacious arguments..., same for me. It’s just opinions, they’re neither right..., nor wrong.

You're just repeating yourself. I'm not making any fallacious arguments. I never said they advocated for violence, and neither did anyone else. I've said that at least three times now. You seem to be confused in thinking that the argument is about making those two players stop the death threats. That's not the point. The point is that if they hadn't overreacted and made it such a public display, no one would have cared. It's the mob mentality. I'm sure you've heard of it. One prominent person decides to take issue with something, and a bunch of people follow. For some, they resort to violence, or threats of violence. I agree that neither of those players can be held DIRECTLY responsible for any specific threats. But by showing a united front, publicly, while handling your disagreements behind closed doors, goes a long way toward diffusing the mob. Again, that's how that mob mentality works. They tend to follow the lead of those they look up to. Sometimes taking it to the extremes.

“Overreacted” is subjective. It’s how you view it, no doubt others. I don’t discount your view on things, I just see there are other views, including mine, that it was passionate and emotional commentary. It very well could also be seen as a “backstabbing” comment from teammates of all colors inside the locker-room. Regardless of what was said three years previously, the situation in that locker-room and the NFL in general is different now, than it was before. I evaluate Thomas’ and Jenkins’ comments in the appropriate time frame, which is right now.

Mobs are wrong, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks out of the year, all mobs, along with all socially motivated “boycotts”. I’ll never buy into that mentality, either side. And that includes the “I’m boycotting the NFL bc..., race reasons” mob. I’m just not of that mindset, but to each their own.

It's fine to play the "I just listen and don't rock the boat" position, if that's your thing, man. I happen to believe it's passive and unproductive. People are out there spreading absolute lies that are poisoning people's minds, and leading to the kind of idiotic reaction that Brees got. What he said was perfectly valid. Because it's obvious most people don't care for the time and place that the protests were happening. He wasn't commenting on their cause, itself. So if he can't have that opinion, why do the players deserve a pass for theirs, and acting like children?

I believe it is the responsibility of every adult to stand up for what he believes is right. I also believe it is the responsibility of every adult to know what they believe and why. The players cannot defend, with any logic, the kind of people they are propping up as victims in their petty social justice war. And short of being able to do so, they don't have the right to just get what they want from everyone else. It matters not whether they feel differently now then they did three years ago. Nothing has changed in three years to support their cause. A black man gets shot by the police, and it doesn't matter that there is video evidence of the suspect resisting arrest. It doesn't matter that more white people are killed by police, despite the black population accounting for the majority of crime in this country. These are little things called facts and reason. So I supported Drew's initial stance. I do not support his decision to crawfish.

Nothing wrong with your choices and/or actions. Nothing wrong with mine, or others either, so long as no laws are being broken. I’ve put boots on in combat, proudly retired from the Army, miss it, a lot, lol..., but I really don’t need anyone intimating what my “responsibilities” are, or “should” be. My guess is D.Brees, M.Thomas and M.Jenkins feel the same..., but I won’t speak for them. They’ve done it themselves already.