Total posts: 3,192
-->
@3RU7AL
ARE HUMANS UNDECIPHERABLE ENIGMAS OR PROGRAMMABLE BLACK BOXES?
A bit of both, or neither. Conventional definitions of "programmable" would suggest that our behaviors reflect some schemata. On the other hand, there's choice, i.e. I can choose not to eat, or sleep, or drink water; I can choose suicide, etc. And then there's the mind--is it an undecipherable enigma, or is it accumulated and cultivated data bound by logic, which is merely housed in the brain? Or a constellation of characteristics however perceived which is bound by our subjective values? Whichever I pick would likely satisfy only me.
do you believe that people tend to adopt general strategies to deal with challenges they encounter ??
Yes.
do you believe these strategies are identifiable ??
What do you mean? Can they be verbalized/communicated?
(1) do you think a person should get their sense of self-worth from within themselves or from what other people think of them?
I think self-worth should start out from within and primarily focus on what one thinks of oneself. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with getting at least some of one's self-esteem from what other people think of them, whether it has positive or adverse effects. Case in point, I care what my family members and friends think about me. And that contributes in part to how I picture myself. The key is that I don't prioritize over what I think about myself. I think issues with self-esteem arise when one makes it another's responsibility to give them self-worth. How can one expect from others that which one wouldn't expect from oneself?
(2) do you prefer to be spontaneous and go out and travel and do things "IRL" or do you prefer to think about doing things and lose yourself in movies and television shows and books ?
Definitely the latter. I'm a homebody. There have been occasions where I've been spontaneous, but I definitely like to lose myself in a good book while at home. I do play sports, so that gets me out.
(3) do you think people should generally trust their gut or do you think people should generally think things through ??
Trust one's gut, if I had to pick one over the other. One should definitely think things through, but thinking things through can produce no more or less solutions than going with one's gut. And the older I get, the more I trust my gut.
(4) do you think people should follow a strict core code of laws or principles no matter what, or do you think that people should follow different rules in different situations ??
Yes, I think people should follow a strict core code of principles--morally codified by the concept of individualism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
3RU, your still trying to talk rational, logical common sense to the irrational, illogical lack of common sense religous brain dead.Religon can serve a community purpose but when espouses repeatedly the same irrational, illogical lack of common sense concepts it is time forsome of those types to get surgery. ;--) wink wink!
Or you can pay attention to the discussion between 3RU7AL and myself rather than presuming 3RU7AL is wasting time with someone who is irrational and religious--your blunder being found in the fact that I'm neither irrational nor religious. But I suppose not much is to be expected with respect to contribution from one who suggests a resolution to disagreement is surgery--not that you've conveyed any understanding that surgery is not a solution to one's allegedly being "brain dead."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Aryanman
In my school we had a debate were the question was whether it is acceptable to break the law sometimes, i want to know what your guys' opinion is.
Which law? The State's laws? I'm not so much breaking them as I am rejecting to recognize their validity in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
IQ is able to predict job performance to some degree. Schmidt and Hunter (1990) examined the correlation between job performance and IQ Individual Differences in Output Variability as a Function of Job Complexity (gwern.net) . Methodologically speaking, they used coworker's assessments of work and tested it against metrics (such as IQ) to see correlation. IQ was the 2nd best metric, tying for second with a "Structured Interview", and beaten only by "Work Sample Tests" VA8gjB7.png (284×250) (imgur.com) . IQ beat things like "Job Experience," "Job Tryout," and even "Years of Education".
What was this "degree"?
Strenze (2006) performed a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies (average group size being 97,083) that compared various life factors (e.g. IQ, Grades, SES index etc.) with education, occupation and income levels doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004 (emilkirkegaard.dk) . With education, occupation and income levels, IQ consistently produced the best correlation qIGdGqI.png (378×564) (imgur.com) . .
Let's scrutinize these correlation coefficients as it concerns I.Q.:
Correlation with education level:
I.Q. : .49
Correlation with occupation level:
I.Q. : .41
Correlation with income level:
I.Q. : .22
And while the strength of correlation coefficients varies among researchers' metrics, these coefficients are weak to, at best, moderate.
Clearly, IQ measures something that is valid, otherwise these decent correlations wouldn't be produced.
I.Q. does not measure intelligence. Intelligence is not quantifiable. It, at best, gauges classroom discipline.
So, IQ (1) measures something valid (better than most other things), and (2) that valid thing it measures is probably intelligence.
I.Q. is as "valid" as a dance score, or rating of attractiveness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Prayer is hard on the knees.
One needs not pray on one's knees.
Contemplation is best done from a comfortable perspective.
Contemplation can be done from any perspective with discipline and focus. Your local Shaolin monk should have informed you of at least that much.
And the repetition of sounds can can be therapeutic.
As can one's connection with God.
And I always think that the E in therapeutic is surplus to requirements.
Maybe that's the reason you're an atheist. You focused on the surplus of "E's" while neglecting the supplementary "A's" "M's" and "N's."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Eloquently stated.However, perhaps you might consider the following example.You eat a lot of delicious food (because you desire delicious food because you've developed a habit of eating things in order to live and they might as well be delicious things) and some time after you've eaten your delicious food, you feel an almost irresistible impulse to rush to the bathroom.What is the CAUSE of your impulse in this case?
Food-poisoning, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea♫
The operative terms are "in this case."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) HUMAN ACTION IS CAUSED (THEN) WHAT CAUSES HUMAN ACTION ??
Admittedly this is a particularly difficult question to answer. I won't be able to provide anything empirically satisfactory. It could be a whole host of things which aren't necessarily reproducible--e.g. "desire" to kill doesn't necessarily result in killing or the attempt to kill; on the same token, "desire" to kill doesn't NOT result in killing or the attempt to kill. At my capacity, I could only say that reason is the cause of action; I suppose you could argue that we are a sum of our instincts, experiences, gnosis--both private and shared, etc. which informs said reason but even then it's difficult to establish a direct link between any one of those components and action, since in spite of those components, inaction can result as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
EVERYTHING IS EXACTLY AS THE PERFECT GOD PERFECTLY INTENDED IT TO BE.THERE IS NO VARIATION.THERE IS NO DEVIATION.THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IS EXACTLY WHAT PERFECT GOD WANTS IT TO BE.
Fair enough.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT DESIRE CAUSES (INTENTIONAL) ACTION ?
No. Desire results neither in necessary action nor necessary inaction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT HUMAN ACTION IS CAUSED OR UNCAUSED ?
Caused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT PLAN = PERFECT-EXECUTION-OF-THE-PERFECTLY-PERFECT-PLAN
I agree up until this point.
= PERFECT WORLD
perfect in what context? Do you see a distinction between a "perfect world" and a world "perfect for God's plan"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So then here you are. SEE below. It shows how YOU injected both characters into " confusion of languages" narrative. With only one of your chosen characters appearing in whole chapter and only for the sake of highlighting his line /"genealogy" and when he died, starting at verse 10 . And the other character - Ham - THAT YOU INJECTED into the chapter , doesn't appear at all. The chapter relates nothing about the " confusion of tongues" being anything to do with Ham or Shem as YOU will have us believe and have injected into the chapter;
I never said Ham's name appeared in the chapter. I specifically said that you'd find Shem's name, which one does:
Read the whole chapter. (And you'll find Shem's name.)
I also said "The 'confusion of tongues' served to separate the descendants of Shem
and the descendants of Ham." You've already conceded to this being half-correct. Now this is going to be the last time I ask this, otherwise consider our discussion over: WHO IS CANAAN? If you have no intention of answering this question, then enjoy the rest of your day, sir, because I have no interest in wasting any more of my time.
You are full of shite.
I'm full of shit, and yet, you've already conceded to a portion of my point, not to mention, your lying twice. Until now, you never quoted the full chapter and you never linked to it. Which one of us is full of shit?
Ok, So fkn what?!
You were wrong--that's so fucking what.
Why then even bother to inject them into a thread and a BIBLICAL chapter when neither has anything to do with my point concerning the confusion of languages and the fall of the Babel tower?
You don't have a point--not a substantial one at least. Who built Babel? Who commissioned the building of the Tower of Babel? What was his name? What was his father's name? And more importantly, what was his grandfather's name? And let's remember, I told you to read Genesis chapter 10, as well:
While you're at it, take a stab at Genesis 10, as well.
To understand the reason the tower fell, one must understand the reason it was built. And your quoting 11 verses is indeed taking the account out of context.
The only established liar as far as this thread is concerned is you. And once again:
Mine. Because as god and the bible clearly show that he didn't get it right on three accessions. Why keep destroying and then rebuilding the same model. This is failure, BIG time.
This is not a question especially if the inquiry is responded to by the very same person who cast it. (Not to mention, your grammar and punctuation are terrible.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Quoting a FULL chapter from the bible is NOT quoting out of context by any means.
You did not quote a "FULL" chapter; you quoted 11 verses of a 32 verse chapter; that would be a third of its full amount.
The bible says what it says and not that which you want it to say.
You should keep that it mind.
Not interested.
NOPE. AGAIN. I quoted a full chapter and left link to the FULL chapter
You most certainly did neither; you linked only to the chapter of Job.
with the ONLY reference to only one of the TWO characters that you injected into the story and that you say was the cause for confusion of language.
Non sequitur. I never said that Shem and Ham were the "cause" for the confusion of languages. I specifically stated:
The "confusion of tongues" served to separate the descendants of Shem and the descendants of Ham.
You don't read carefully.
While in that specific passage there's no mention of Ham,That's correct there isn't. But you attempted to inject both Ham (and Shem) into the context, it didn't work. Yet accuse me of taking all of the chapter out of context. Your attempted slight of hand hasn't worked.
Once again, who is Canaan?
You didn't answer the question. I asked you - Why keep destroying only to then rebuild the same model?
You didn't ask a question until just now. And you're responding to my question with a question. Why should anyone, or God, concern themselves with your measures? And consider this my response to your question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
HUMAN INSTINCT IS THE "CAUSE" OF "SIN"
Human action is the cause of "sin."
Let's define "sin."
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
Sin is not an instinct. We can debate which instincts influences which actions, but we can't necessarily quantify how those tendencies influence a "bad" action anymore than a "good" action.
This changes the syllogism.
THE PERFECT GOD CREATED HUMAN INSTINCT
While this is true, we cannot argue that a Perfect God created the "act."
THE PERFECT GOD KNEW THE CONSEQUENCES OF HUMAN INSTINCT
Omniscience would indeed dictate that.
THE PERFECT GOD FOLLOWED A PERFECT PLAN
I suppose.
AND EVERYTHING IS GOING ACCORDING TO PERFECT GOD'S PERFECTLY PERFECT PLAN
I would suppose that as well.
THEREFORE, WE LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD
This needs a bit more elaboration, particularly the establishment of the connection between "perfect plan" and "perfect world." Furthermore, I would add that "perfect" isn't necessarily indicative of "good" or "evil" depending on how its defined. It suffices to say that our world "fits perfectly" into God's plan if that's the argument being made. Does this mean that mean that the world itself is "perfect"? We'd have to know that perfect God's perfect definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Opinion.
Be that as it may, your premises and conclusions are still inconsistent.
I didn't say gods actions. >> Then mankind become so corrupt by his actions .
Then don't use the singular possessive pronoun. Case in point: "the people became disgusted with his actions." That would make no sense if the pronoun was a referent to people. You're referring to a group and the pronoun must reflect this. The proper syntax is "Then mankind [became] so corrupt by [their] actions." If you intended to have a singular referent serve as an exemplar, then the proper syntax would read as "Then ['man' ][became] so corrupt by his actions."
...the more you know.
I see. As in causing division. Why doesn't that surprise me. Nothings changed much has it. These gods just love setting one against another. It must keep them busy not to mention thoroughly amused. But then life is cheap to these gods, just read the sad story of Job, one of gods most faithful servants.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201&version=NIVBut the script clearly indicates that the reason given for the confused tongues was that they had attempted to build a tower to heaven.Genesis 11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.NOPE! I see nothing there as indicating the reason you have given for the confusion of language. No Shem, no Ham even mentioned having anything to do with the confusion of languages . Although Shem is mentioned twice further in the chapter but only for the fact of his age and his generations.
You cite text out of context. You take a single passage and you think that explains everything. Read the whole chapter. (And you'll find Shem's name.) While you're at it, take a stab at Genesis 10, as well.
Genesis 11: 10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters......and Ham not at all.
You haven't read the Bible carefully have you? While in that specific passage there's no mention of Ham, there is an explicit mention of Canann in the following verses. Who is Canaan?
Mine. Because as god and the bible clearly show that he didn't get it right on three accessions. Why keep destroying and then rebuilding the same model. This is failure, BIG time.
Why should God or anyone else concern themselves with your measures?
And you, it appears are seeing and "beholding" things that are not even written there.
Seem is not an argument. [Appear and "seem" are synonyms.]
Created:
Posted in:
The irony of toppling these statues manifests in cognitive dissonance. Aficionados of the Confederate legacy are predominantly located in the Bible-belt. There should be no issue with toppling these graven images, since the Bible teaches not to worship false idols. Interesting enough, there's also a statue of Vulcan in the Bible-belt. The commission of this statue's erection makes one wonder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
To erase history with the intent to prevent its recurrence is the height of stupidity. Who would remember to avoid things we wish did not happen if it is erased from history?
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Once again: ad populum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
With Adam and Eve the failure is that they disobeyed god. But god created these pair. I didn’t. Yet I am told I will suffer in hell for three reasons.(1) I apparently have inherited their sin.
You are not told that you will suffer in hell because you inherited their sin.
I don’t believe Jesus was god;
Okay.
It is doubtful that even Jesus believed himself to be a god either?
"Doubtful" is not a sound argument. You are appealing to your own incredulity.
So then his master plan for the creation of man was a complete failure.
Non sequitur. Your conclusions and premises are inconsistent.
Then mankind become so corrupt by his actions and multiple sinful ways that he sent a flood to wipe them from the face of the earth. Another fail.
Why did man become so corrupt "by [God's] actions"? Delineate these actions and how they led to man's corruption.
He confuse human language after the destruction of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel incident so that they could not effectively communicate with each other. Another failure.
The "confusion of tongues" served to separate the descendants of Shem and the descendants of Ham. "Failure" is in the eye of your beer-holder.
Matthew 13: 40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.Mathew 13 comes well after these previous disasters sent onto the shoulders of mankind by god, and it appears that god still hadn't corrected a single one of his own previous errors, either!?Why so many failures if god is said, and seen to be by millions, to be perfect? How many goes does he have to have before getting it right, before we are sent to the flames to face much gnashing of teeth in perpetuity?
Failure by whose measures? His or yours?
Created:
Posted in:
I think people who pray have in the fact that their God will hear their prays and grant them whatever they want. Otherwise, what is the point of saying "forgive us our sins", if no one is listening?
Non-sequitur. No one stated that "no one is listening." The suggestion here was that a prayer =/= magic wish. FLRW asserted based on his assumption of "a billion prayers worldwide" for those who died in the Surfside condominium, that event was an exemplar of prayers "not working."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I don't think the purpose of prayer, is as a wish granting lamp?
Well stated. Prayer is a form of meditation; it's not a magic wish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I still don't grasp your meaning when you state it's "not grounded on earth" or "fantastical." I can understand--like oromagi suggested--that new studies cast doubt on Koestler's findings, but that doesn't suggest that his findings are without merit, or at least without merit during the time his research was conducted. Furthermore, most if not all the references you listed, with exception to the jstor link, spend too much time appealing to Koestler's motives and the allegedly nefarious intentions of those who employ the Khazarian theory. Admittedly, I'm going to have to do more research into the methodology of these new studies, given that what I've read thus far has made no explicit mention of sufficient controls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Koestler's Khazar theory? No thanks. I'll stick with something a bit more grounded on earth.
How is it not "grounded on earth"?
Created:
Posted in:
Minimum-wage automatically and without fail creates unemployment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
@zedvictor4
@oromagi
@Timid8967
If you're interested in the subject, I'd recommend Arthur Koestler's Thirteen Tribe: the Khazar Empire and its Heritage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Do you mean to say that you respect all religions?
I mean to say I acknowledge the existence of all gods. I do not respect every religion--particularly Luciferianism and its derivatives.
I can't imagine that you actually believe in lightning-bolt-throwing sky man.
How else does one explain thunder?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you don't know then you you don't know.But I'm certain that you do know.So I'm content with that certainty.
I do know. But ultimately, if you're satisfied with your measures that'd be fine. But why would a theist accept your measures, much less concern themselves with your criticism in their refusal to accept them, especially when the basis of said measures are just as "fantastical"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
All pagan deities are derivatives of ignorance
Ignorance of what?
All non-pagan deities are derivative of pagan deities.
Not in the slightest. You’re merely rendering a non sequitur based on their emergent popularity.
Fantastical solutions in the absence of understanding.
What understanding was absent? Please be explicit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Public education is extremely insufficient especially if the intent is to enable those that go through it to genuinely be on equal footing to those that went through private education but even within public education, those that struggle with the regimented way it's taught and examined come to perish in it (as well as those with rougher households).
Public Education is insufficient because it essentially serves as a detention mechanism for children whose parents are uninvolved in their education. Leaving them subjected to the disinformation propagated by public schools. And speaking from personal experience, my family was very much involved in my education—from my parents to my grandparents to siblings, even to my cousins. And I’d pay it forward with my younger siblings and my younger cousins. And this has led me to conclude that Public education teaches classroom discipline, it does not necessarily educate. And that is intentional. Because the product of a public school curriculum isn’t supposed to be a critical thinker who recalls and process the knowledge of his experiences appropriately; the product is supposed to be a future debt-slave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
SAMPLE BIAS.
You misunderstand, friend. The goal is to give a wrong answer. Though, I understand that it's not your way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If humans didn't want nepotism at all, like not even one bit, they'd support the state literally taking infants from their parents and raising them from birth to indoctrinate them to a pro-state agenda.
This already happens: it's called public education.
Clearly, this isn't supported, people instinctively in our raw DNA as well as sociologically formed ethics have concluded it's better to have random variation in upbringing lead to unfair advantages of different kinds as well as disadvantages.
You mean outside the U.S.? I'm certain that all industrialized nations have public indoctrination systems.
Nepotism isn't all that evil especially at the small-business and/or low-ranking level. It becomes more of an issue up-top.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
What do you think of nepotism and should it be prohibited in business or government?
No.
The college admissions scandal got me thinking. There's a lot of people out there on their high horse about how wrong it was for two rich celebrities, and other rich parents, to pay money to get their kids into good colleges.
If there is an issue with parents paying for the child's admission, then let that reflect on the reputation of the institution.
But how is that any different than Trump's children becoming executives at his company right off the bat, or even being appointed to government positions?
Are you knowledgeable of their credentials?
Some people with family connections have experience and insight that makes them qualified for the job
Yes, so there's no issue right?
but the Trumps are one famous example, though obviously they are everywhere, where someone gets where they are solely for family connections and money.
Please elaborate on the reason that they acquired their positions "solely" on family connections and money.
Would the Obamas daughter have gotten into those ivy league schools if not for her famous father?
Would she have not? That's your issue; not hers.
Of course, there is a difference between nepotism and fraud, which is what the college admissions scandal was where they fabricated qualifications and went to lengths to lie and cheat.
They didn't lie and cheat; this was protocol. However, when said protocol became public, they had to renege and feign outrage to protect the reputation of their institutions.
But it doesn't feel as bad as Jared Kushner being in his thirties with no political experience negotiating foreign affairs in the Middle East and Asia.
Jared Kushner was "installed" to watch Trump. His daughter was also given to Kushner as collateral/prize. In other words, Trump's "sponsors" would be responsible for the "nepotism" not Trump himself.
Should legal lines be drawn in the sand, and if so, where?
No.
I don't think there is much you can do with private companies
Agreed. And there shouldn't be anything done.
especially ones not publicly traded
That does not matter.
but should we be shaming this more?
"Shame"? Why would one "shame" hiring family members and relatives?
Do you think the college admissions scandal was that bad?
It wasn't bad at all. Just revealing.
I don't, though I am glad rich people got held accountable to the law for a change.
As opposed to other times when they weren't?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Even Zeus. But Zeus is derivative of Lucifer. As are most, if not all, pagan deities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I don't subscribe to any particular religion. I grew up Christian, so perhaps I have a bias toward the Abrahamic religions. But I acknowledge the existence of all Gods, which doesn't necessarily mean that I acknowledge the moral integrity of all religions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
93% of the National Academy of Sciences, an elite organization of the best Scientists in the USA, were either overwhelmingly Atheist (72%) or Agnostic (21%). That was a cross-section poll of the 2000 scientists there, but what skews it is that these are the best of the best, all PhDs.
Your statement exhibits a logical inconsistency: I presume that the remaining 7% are theists of some sort. That would mean 140 of these "best of the best" do subscribe to some God or Gods. So answer me this: why would the professional credentials of the 7% who assert their theism inform said theism any less than the 93% who assert their atheism or agnosticism? Are the differentials in these percentages supposed to inform either the veracity or integrity of atheism or theism? That would be argumentum ad populum.
71 percent of people who only have a high school education say they believe in God.
So? Once again, your imputing an argumentum ad populum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
What are theists's honest opinion on atheists, vice versa?
I've debated atheists for several years--decades even. Most I've encountered argue very weak premises, the act of which I presume is informed by a weak grasp for logical consistency. I'm sure there are theists who do the same, but I tend to give them leeway given the nature of their beliefs. (Some) atheists on the other hand have hijacked "logical authority" and I "can't resist" informing them that "atheism =/= logical consistency."
Created:
I think Chess, while simpler to play, is the more difficult game. Poker is primarily contingent on the luck of the draw, probabilities which are outside the control of the participants. Yes there are those who are skilled in retaining in their memory the probability of each number and suit, but at the end of the day, one's best or most skilled effort could still result in a loss even against one's worst effort. That doesn't really incorporate much difficulty since much of it is not one's control. On the other hand, the most skilled player wins.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
This whole discussion is ridiculous to begin with. Billiard is not a sport! You are correct, its a competition like a spelling Bee or a baking contest, it requires no physical strength
I more so blame the English language than anything else.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Yes, there are multiple sense of the word Sport, but none that include running and exclude billiards as you claim.SPORT [noun] (countable and uncountable, plural sports)
- (countable) Any activity that uses physical exertion or skills competitively under a set of rules that is not based on aesthetics.
- Billiards and bowling are games of skill, so applicable
- (obsolete) That which diverts, and makes mirth; pastime; amusement. quotations
- (obsolete) Mockery, making fun; derision.
- N/A
- (countable) A toy; a plaything; an object of mockery.
- N/A
- (uncountable) Gaming for money as in racing, hunting, fishing.
- Billiards particular but also bowling may be bet on, so applicable
- Poker, as I said
- (biology, botany, zoology, countable) A plant or an animal, or part of a plant or animal, which has some peculiarity not usually seen in the species; an abnormal variety or growth. The term encompasses both mutants and organisms with non-genetic developmental abnormalities such as birth defects.
- N/A
- (slang, countable) A sportsman; a gambler.
- N/A
- (slang, countable) One who consorts with disreputable people, including prostitutes.
- N/A
- Sex, as I said
- (informal, usually singular) A friend or acquaintance (chiefly used when speaking to the friend in question)
- N/A
- (obsolete) Play; idle jingle.
- N/A
It's impressive that you've combed through so many definitions, but ultimately futile. I'm not rejecting any of those definitions. I'm only indulging the nuance in the description of Sports and creating divisions based on popular usage. However, since you do require an explicit reference which meets my description, I'll provide it for you:
(2) : a particular activity (such as an athletic game) so engaged in
1 : physical activity (as running or an athletic game) engaged in for pleasure or exercise
Now that we've established that I'm not making up definitions, let's delve further into your non-sequiturs:
Billiards and bowling are amusing, so applicable
Having played Billiards and bowled numerous times, I can attest to the notion that these games are fun and amusing. That however is not the source of my contention. To understand the distinction I'm drawing a bit better, let's first define "athlete":
Athlete:
a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of physical exercise.
a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina
a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; a participant in a sport, exercise, or game requiring physical skill.
a person trained to compete in sports or exercises involving physical strength, speed, or endurance
I cite these definitions in order to demonstrate the term's association to sports. And you'll also notice in those definitions the equivalence drawn between sports and games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina.
If we accept games like Billiards, bowling, and the like into the vernacular of Sports, then there's nothing that discourages the label of a pool player as an "athlete" especially considering your broad application of the term Sports. Some Obese teenager sitting on a "gaming chair" for 16 hours a day would also be considered an athlete, and tacitly equated to athletes of sports like Basketball, Baseball, Football, Soccer, Tennis, etc.
Oromagi, you are aware of distinction I've made. (Hence, your stating that you empathized.) The issue was whether my description was "made up." I trust now that your concern has been addressed.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I don't buy either of those claims.
I'll address your first statement, later:
If anything, the old English meaning was even further flung including any amusement as good sport
I never claimed that the Old English, or the etymological root, of the term, Sports, excluded leisurely and recreational activities--i.e. from poker to sex. I stated that billiards, bowling, and even "gaming" entered the vernacular of Sports only in recent decades. Billiards competitions go far back, but so does Chess.
And second, are you claiming incredulity as it concerns the nuance of definitions? Do you want me to cite a definition which meets my description? Merely typing "sport" into your google search engine should suffice.
You can even conduct an impromptu survey for your own benefit: ask any random sample(s) of individuals whether or not they play "sports" and see how often billiards, poker, bowling, "gaming," etc. comes up when answered in the affirmative.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I certainly empathize- I feel the same way when automobile racing is categorized as sport. Still, making up you own definition for words is not likely to help.
I didn't make it up. The definition of sports, like many words, have nuanced descriptions. And competitions like bowling, and billiards, and even "gaming" have entered the vernacular of Sports only in recent decades.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Wiki:SPORT pertains to any form of competitive physical activity or game that aims to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants and, in some cases, entertainment to spectators
The context in which I applied the term, sport, was exclusive to athletic competition, which games like billiards, golf, and bowling are devoid of (not that I mentioned bowling to begin with.) I've played athletic sports like Basketball and Football, and I've also played games which focus more on skill like billiards, golf, bowling, etc. and trust me--there's a difference. The term, Sport, colloquially has become, unjustly, a substitute for competition. I acknowledge games like billiards, golf, bowling, chess, poker, and even "gaming" as platforms for large scale competition; I do not acknowledge them as sports primarily due to limited physical exertion and stamina the aforementioned require.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Politics: There are over 20 political issues, such as, "Should abortion be legal?", "Should taxes be raised", "Should we have more gun control" etc.Religion: There is only one issue: Does God exist?How come there are more posts from this one singular issue (The existence of God) then there are from every single political issue COMBINED? There are more posts on the religion forum than all the political issues on the political forum. WHY?
Because the subject of God's existence elicits strong emotions. Except some atheists have not come to terms with this yet. I single them out because they typically take the position that their stance is based on empirical data and is devoid of any flimsy-whimsy useless concoctions of the mind like imagination and emotion. Whereas theists embrace their emotional attachment to their spirituality. So why are there so many posts? (Some) atheists are in denial.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
This whole discussion is ridiculous to begin with. Billiard is not a sport!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
What are you talking about?
I won't engage you any further on this. You've already tipped your hand. I'm only informing you that I know who you are. Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Schooling itself is what's flawed. You cannot properly help creative thinkers flourish in a regimented syllabus strict examination system.
That doesn't mean that "schooling" is flawed. The same reason a creative thinker wouldn't flourish in a strict regimented system, a book-smart, hard-line thinker wouldn't flourish in a more open-standard environment. Education, pretty much like everything else, should be individually based, rather than conscripting children to subject themselves to indoctrination gulags, where they merely learn that which the State wants them to learn.
Until we realise we can't ever have everyone ranked objectively, we'll begin to better analyse resumes and intelligence levels of creative students. Until then, they need to creatively endure the BS until they're adults and then make their own way in life if they can.
Most Education standards, if not all, are just training to enter the corporate environment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
School choice takes the central out of central planning.
Not really. While I would agree that this is a "step-up" from the previous scheme, as I understand it, this initiative is sanctioned with Federal Funds, which will inevitably create a Federal criterion which all schooling options must meet.
Created: