That’s your reading of his words. He didn’t say he can’t show pride in the country – he said he can’t show pride in the flag for the country. He could have said the first, but he chose the second, which indicates to me that he sees the flag as representing something aside from the country as a whole. Based on the other things he’s said, I think he sees the flag as a representation of the American system and institutions of government and society, and I see no problem whatsoever with not being proud of those things as a whole.
Well now we’re getting somewhere; please tell us more. 
Seriously, I don’t agree with your point of view, but equating a misplaced nationalism with oppressing black people and people of color seems like way too far to me. I don’t believe the 2 are the same.
Kaepernick has a clear right to his opinions and the NFL would seem to have a clear right to not employ him. If he was more talented, he would be employed, but just being better then some backups does not make him worth the associated PR hit of having him on the team.
Actually, that’s the whole point of the grievance. Individual team owners have a clear right to not employ him. The NFL owners cannot collectively agree not to employ him however.
He has been offered and he has rejected back-up quarterback positions. He wants a starting quarterback position with the compensation that comes with it.
Do you have a cite for this?
Why not indeed? It’s on par with what you’re doing with CK’s argument.
His grievance states that he hasn’t. Considering that if he has, that would pretty much immediately kill his case, and it would be remarkably easy for the NFL to prove he was offered a backup position, I’d say he’s probably telling the truth.
He said flag because he was commenting on his reaction to it specifically (actually the anthem, which is functionally similar).
OK.
Be my guest.
I believe I will considering you are on record saying that peaceful protest (incidently an American value which you should admire given your position of my Country right or wrong) is worse that torturing and brutalizing and killing dogs.
Or he said it for the reason I suggested. Neither of us are mind readers, so without further clarification, we won’t know for sure. I find your reading close to logically impossible, and therefore an enormous leap to condemn him as worse than torturing dogs.
I know that I’d much rather have Kapaernick than Vick watching my children. I’ve seen no evidence that Kapaernick has any bit of cruelty or violence within him.
Hey, I don’t mind your “proof” that I personally oppress blacks and people of color. That’s just your own “logic”. But I object to your assertion that I’ve said anything in particular about “peaceful protest” as a general principle. I’ve discussed one particular peaceful protest.
While cheerfully I scoff at your reasoning, I do need to request that you take care not to misquote me or mischaracterize my words.
Your distinction between “country” and “American system and institutions of government and society” is a distinction without a difference (and one which Kaepernick himself did not make in referring to the flag of a “country”).
The pen is mightier than the sword, and a capacity for personal cruelty and violence is not the ultimate determinant of who is more harmful to society.
I have a feeling that you (& others) would accept this principle if we were discussing peaceful protest by non-violent people in favor of white supremacy or segregation etc. In this case, you happen to be sympathetic to Kaepernick’s cause, but that doesn’t make the “peaceful” or “non-violent” aspects a better argument.
My whole point is that this is the exact same misquoting and mischaracterization that you yourself are practicing with CK. So if it is not fair to do with your words, why is it fair for you to do with CK’s words.
Why is a raven like a writing desk?
It’s a direct distinction from the one you made, which was that “country” is the American people. There’s definitely a difference between the American people and American systems and institutions of government and society.
My feelings on the issue certainly give me more sympathy for Kapaernick – are you certain that yours don’t in the other direction? As for harm to society, peaceful protests for good causes are always helpful, even if some find them disrespectful, IMO. Unless you feel his cause is entirely unjust (in the same way I’d call a peaceful protest for segregation harmful to society), I’m still baffled that you find protests of symbols and imagery so harmful. Protests like this can be instrumental in changing America for the better – what could be more helpful to society?
Frankly, I find your attitude in this specific discussion harmful to the country (in the tiny way that individual attitudes on issues like this can be) – far more harmful than anything Kapaernick has done. There’s nothing special about any symbols or imagery, for any cause or country, including the US flag and national anthem, that precludes potentially positive and helpful peaceful protesting.
Not in context. The point I’ve been making in this thread is about the system and the extent to which it requires sacrifices from the people in the name of the common good.
You’re adding in a clause (“for good causes”) that you didn’t have before. My point stands. “Peaceful” is not the be-all-and-end-all in assessing the value or harm from a person, movement, or action.
I’ve explained this repeatedly in this thread. If you’re just going to ignore that, then there’s certainly no point in repeating it yet again.
That’s perfectly fine with me. Everyone has their own perspective.
Do you honestly equate protesting against state-condoned violence with pro-hate protesting because I do not.
That’s your reading of the context of CK’s words – my reading is very different.
I agree, and I never disagreed with that particular point.
It didn’t make any sense to me. I don’t agree that his words imply a lack of appreciation for the things he’s benefited from, but even if I did, how is that so much worse than torturing dogs?
Suppose this protest, and others like it, become a part of a movement and national conversation that results in significant change, and in 50 years African Americans are largely as trusting of law enforcement as white Americans, due to policy and culture changes, and many fewer instances of perceived mistreatment by law enforcement, resulting from conversations like this one. Wouldn’t that be an immensely positive result? If that occurred, would you still hold that Kapaernick’s actions were very harmful to the country?
I’m not saying that’s definitely going to happen, but that’s the goal and hope – and how could something entirely peaceful, with an aim like that, possibly be more harmful to the country than torturing dogs just on the possibility of perceived lack of appreciation?
Because, if I’m reading F-P’s argument correctly, you DO NOT protest against the US. That is verboten. I’m not exactly sure why that is such a huge sin … even more than dog torture.
Clearly I disagree since I think peaceful protest against the US is at heart what it means to be an American even if I disagree with the message.
In fact, if every owner in the league refused to hire Kaepernick because of his kneeling antics, and admitted it publicly, that’s still not collusion. In order to prove collusion, Kaepernick and his lawyers will have to come up with evidence that two or more owners/managers got together or exchanged communications where they agreed that they should not hire him. Not just asked the other guy if he’s thinking to hire Kaepernick - that’s not good enough. But actually said something like “if you don’t hire him, I won’t either”. Good luck with that.