>> ^snoozedoctor:

Matt Cassel is my neighbor. He is the nicest guy you could meet, humble, dedicated, a family man with a lovely wife and 2 beautiful kids. KC fans are a-holes and I'm glad Winston called them on it.


He's a father and a good person...who must DIE! The Mob Has SPOKEN!!!

>> ^bareboards2:

@Yogi, sure.
But what you just said is different than DEFENDING the cheers.
I'll say it again. I grew up in a age when the stadium would go SILENT in the face of human injury.
We are devolving.


The Baying Mob pays his salary, if they wanted to kill him and put his head on a pike out in front of the Stadium I say they have a right to do it. This is America Goddammit! Your life has NO VALUE!!

>> ^bareboards2:

promote this: Winston waited for members of the media to gather by his locker after the game, then told them: "If this isn't posted in the paper or run on your (website), this is the last time you're going to talk to me."

As for the Nascar analogy, I don't think the fans CHEER when an accident happens.
I grew up seeing footage of football stadiums going silent when a player was hurt or knocked out, and cheering when they stood up again.
You guys who are justifying the cheering are part of the problem that Eric is talking about. So numb to common human decency that you argue about what he is saying.
Cheer the big hits. Don't cheer a human comatose on the field.
In my opinion. Except Eric is right, and therefore I am right.


I'm sorry but this country is filled with blood thirsty bastards who love it when anyone with brown skin is killed in a horrific fashion. Is it that much of a leap to think they'd cheer a guy they don't like being seriously injured? We're not evolved as much as we'd like to think we are.

I hate all these people too. I stopped being impressed with law school once I came to appreciate that they're just businesses like any other school.

I also have no time left in my life for social-inadequates who still want to propagate the notion that football players are dumb and go on to work at Denny's, etc. In fact football players, especially quarterbacks, tend to be an exceptionally highly competitive group with a typical distribution of intelligence, and so if you took a random sample of ex football players and non-ex-football players, I guarantee you a higher level of achievement in the football players' group.

Fun fact, the crowd applauds itself after doing a Mexican wave at the tennis.

And for my 2c. It' impossible for an NFL player to ever catch a ball like that - reasonably firm ground strokes in tennis travel upwards of 150km/hr (~100+ miles per hour), NFL quarterbacks throw at only about half this speed, so the receiver is not relying on cat-like reflexes like this kid, rather he's relying on speed, skill and maneuvering so he's at the right place at the right time with his hands in the right spot.

Also, ball size?

Cricket balls are bowled at up to 150km/hr, similar to tennis, so similar rapid reflexes are required for a slips catch (or someone at point or silly mid off), and also the ball is the same size, it's a perfect match!

So I would say that:
Jerry Rice: Hell no
Ricky Ponting: Hell yes

Also, did anyone see the mens final tonight? Djokovic tore off his shirt at the end like the incredible hulk lol, what a pro.

Jerry Rice was a wide receiver for the San Francisco 49ers, during their dynastic dominance of the NFL during the 1990's. If you don't know what a wide receiver does, that's okay. They catch the ball that the quarterback of the team throws to them while running at full speed with goddamn ninja free safeties chasing them down. Now if you don't know what a quarterback is or a free safety, then I cannot help you at this time.

I forget that in Football, a 80YDs pass doesn't mean the quarterback has thrown the ball 80YDs far. The ball carrier has to run much of the way lol

Don't care for the self-admitted armchair quarterbacking -- as if Manning had the resources to analyse hundreds of thousands of cables.

I am not Monday night quarterbacking only because I do something about my culture in my own profession. I don't speak about the changes that need to be done with the exception of practical effects (I promote truth over policy, for example.)

I feel better in my job than if I was in the spotlight where I would only be marginalized. I am not a scientist, so I wouldn't be effective. I don't have the clout that De has, and so policy would not change. But I change policy where I am...

And no, it wasn't an attack. Your perspective was amazing, actually Boise, and I must truly evaluate it. And perhaps apply it. But I will argue that he is not shining the spotlight much at all...

>> ^Boise_Lib:

He hasn't run; have You?
He's doing nothing--he's using his national platform to speak out and tell the truth as he sees it; what are you doing?
Talk about Monday Quarterbacking.
I'm sorry if this seems like an attack on you, but the argument of, "What's he doing about it" is over used and usually not helpful.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^HaricotVert:
Why are there so few (if any) engineers, scientists, and mathematicians involved in politics?
Obviously because we're smart enough to know better. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
Kidding aside, his underlying point that the House of Representatives does not actually represent (nor reflect) the American people is spot on. Perhaps it is more indicative of a broken election system designed to keep incumbents in their jobs...

He understands this yet does nothing (From what I know, I am generalizing here) to change it? He is as wrong as the politians he points out as wrong. Also, @Boise_Lib he hasn't run, I believe. So that makes him more of a Monday-night quarterback than anything...
See, for me the sad part is that HE IS RIGHT. But what does he plan to do about it? (And if anyone has information that he is doing something about it, please post. I would be glad to support this man anyway I could.)

He hasn't run; have You?
He's doing nothing--he's using his national platform to speak out and tell the truth as he sees it; what are you doing?
Talk about Monday Quarterbacking.

I'm sorry if this seems like an attack on you, but the argument of, "What's he doing about it" is over used and usually not helpful.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^HaricotVert:
Why are there so few (if any) engineers, scientists, and mathematicians involved in politics?
Obviously because we're smart enough to know better. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
Kidding aside, his underlying point that the House of Representatives does not actually represent (nor reflect) the American people is spot on. Perhaps it is more indicative of a broken election system designed to keep incumbents in their jobs...

He understands this yet does nothing (From what I know, I am generalizing here) to change it? He is as wrong as the politians he points out as wrong. Also, @Boise_Lib he hasn't run, I believe. So that makes him more of a Monday-night quarterback than anything...
See, for me the sad part is that HE IS RIGHT. But what does he plan to do about it? (And if anyone has information that he is doing something about it, please post. I would be glad to support this man anyway I could.)

>> ^HaricotVert:
Why are there so few (if any) engineers, scientists, and mathematicians involved in politics?
Obviously because we're smart enough to know better. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
Kidding aside, his underlying point that the House of Representatives does not actually represent (nor reflect) the American people is spot on. Perhaps it is more indicative of a broken election system designed to keep incumbents in their jobs...


He understands this yet does nothing (From what I know, I am generalizing here) to change it? He is as wrong as the politians he points out as wrong. Also, @Boise_Lib he hasn't run, I believe. So that makes him more of a Monday-night quarterback than anything...

See, for me the sad part is that HE IS RIGHT. But what does he plan to do about it? (And if anyone has information that he is doing something about it, please post. I would be glad to support this man anyway I could.)

You're addressing my ideas by cutting and pasting from an atheist wikipedia? I've seen so many appeals to outside authority in this thread, it makes me wonder if anyone here has come to any independent conclusions..every time i say anything someone just punches it into google and finds the rebuttal and then their world makes sense again..its just depressing

>> ^shuac:
Well, I'd like to address this idea of atheist/agnostic for sb's benefit. I doubt it'll change his mind but at least it'll be out there for the record.
Questions about atheism and agnosticism are questions about belief and knowledge, respectively.
BELIEF
theism / atheism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true, while an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.
Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.
To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.
There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:
1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.
There is room for a third option regarding the existence of god; one can simply not know, nor believe that god exists or believe that god does not exist. One can merely state that the proof in favor of a god is not there, but one may also assert that the proof against god may not be there, so one can hold an opinion in the limbo state.
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).
Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)
While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).
An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Joe Montana was the greatest football quarterback of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition.
KNOWLEDGE
gnosticism / agnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know.
For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim. Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Let me just go ahead and say that again, giving it its own line for emphasis.
The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.
One can be...
1. an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist).
2. a gnostic atheist, someone who believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
3. an agnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true
4. a gnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.
Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.
While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

Well, I'd like to address this idea of atheist/agnostic for sb's benefit. I doubt it'll change his mind but at least it'll be out there for the record.

Questions about atheism and agnosticism are questions about belief and knowledge, respectively.

BELIEF

theism / atheism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true, while an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.

Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:

1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

There is room for a third option regarding the existence of god; one can simply not know, nor believe that god exists or believe that god does not exist. One can merely state that the proof in favor of a god is not there, but one may also assert that the proof against god may not be there, so one can hold an opinion in the limbo state.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)

While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).

An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Joe Montana was the greatest football quarterback of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition.

KNOWLEDGE

gnosticism / agnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know.

For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim. Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Let me just go ahead and say that again, giving it its own line for emphasis.

The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

One can be...

1. an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist).

2. a gnostic atheist, someone who believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

3. an agnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true

4. a gnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.

Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.

While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

From yt:

A stalemate between owners and players that threatens the upcoming NFL season and the widening scandal that forced beloved Ohio State University coach Jim Tressel to resign in disgrace are only the most recent reminders that football has always provoked a huge amount of controversy.

In the early 20th century, football was a literal bloodsport, writes John J. Miller in his new book The Big Scrum. After a series of game-related deaths, President Teddy Roosevelt called together the presidents of the three biggest football colleges (Harvard, Yale, and Princeton - yes, a very different America) and jawboned them into cleaning up the game to stave off legislative attempts to ban it outright.

The result, says Miller, was the creation of the distinctively American game football featuring forward passes, quarterbacks, spread offenses, and more.

The author of several books including the historical novel The First Assassin, Miller writes for National Review and is the new director of the journalism program at Hillsdale College. For more information about Miller, including links to his popular podcast series, go here (http://www.heymiller.com/).

Miller sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie to talk about The Big Scrum, the scandal-ridden history of college football, and exactly what budding journalists need to learn in college (hint: it's not journalism).

About 6.31 minutes.

Shot by Jim Epstein, Meredith Bragg, and Josh Swain, who edited the piece.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.