Thread to hold extended & contentious Discussions

[Edward64]

Per Flasch's suggestion and my response (see below links), setting up this thread to hold any contentious overflow from other threads.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The 2024 Presidential Nomination - GOP Debate #1 (Aug 23, 2023)

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The 2024 Presidential Nomination - GOP Debate #1 (Aug 23, 2023)

For additional context, see same thread posts 276 to 299.

[Edward64]

Reserved

[GrantDawg]

I don't want to be too controversial, but Team Joe or Team Sophie?

[Edward64]

Team Joe. We saw what she did in the Ring video.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Team Joe. We saw what she did in the Ring video.

So now it is time for my counter? Ok. "Edward, you ignorant slut...."

[Edward64]

I'm sure SNL would get cancelled if they did that skit nowadays.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm sure SNL would get cancelled if they did that skit nowadays.

Yup. I don't think the joke would hit the same as it did then either.

[GrantDawg]

Btw, are you talking about this Ring footage?

the Sophie Turner ring camera video is wild, Joe Jonas must be in a corner crying somewhere pic.twitter.com/DVXqnQoNsT

— Pieke Roelofs (@_pieke) September 7, 2023

[NobodyHere]

[Flasch186]

Twitter links never work from the tapatalk app

Any suggestions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Congrats FOFC. One month since the last really heated and inflammatory argument (see post #1 above).

Closest since then is the Israel-Hamas thread but not near the vitriol; some sarcasm for sure but no personal attacks.

Let's see if we can get to month 2.

[NobodyHere]

Is cereal considered a soup?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Is cereal considered a soup?

Like I say, definitions matter.

No, not by most dictionary definitions.

In the eyes of the Random House Unabridged dictionary, soup is “a liquid food made by boiling or simmering meat, fish, or vegetables with various added ingredients.”[1] The Collins dictionary also supports this definition, calling soup a “liquid food made by boiling meat, fish, or vegetables in water.”[2] Last time we checked, no boiling water (or meat and veggies!) is needed to prepare a cold bowl of cereal.

The Merriam-Webster definition offers a little bit of wiggle room by defining soup as “a liquid food especially with a meat, fish, or vegetable stock as a base and often containing pieces of solid food.”[3] Cereal, in many respects, qualifies as “a liquid food” that “often contains pieces of solid food”—and the use of “especially” leads some to speculate that savory stock isn’t the ultimate qualifier of a dish’s overall soupiness.

[flere-imsaho]

So gazpacho is not a soup?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So gazpacho is not a soup?

It looks like a soup. It fits Merriam-Webster definition?



Let me also toss in the Wiki defintion.

Soup - Wikipedia

Soup is a primarily liquid food, generally served warm or hot (but may be cool or cold), that is made by combining ingredients of meat or vegetables with stock, milk, or water.

Salmorejo is a thick variant of gazpacho originating from Andalusia.
Cold soups are a particular variation on the traditional soup, wherein the temperature when served is kept at or below room temperature. They may be sweet or savory. In summer, sweet cold soups can form part of a dessert tray. An example of a savory chilled soup is gazpacho, a chilled vegetable-based soup originating from Spain.[12] Vichyssoise is a cold purée of potatoes, leeks, and cream.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, but I don't think it's made by boiling or simmering, though I might be wrong.

[Edward64]

I was in Portugal & Spain last year. I wish we had this discussion then, I would have loved to have tried it.

Did have some octopus & rice (not my cup of tea), mussels (decent), snail entree, and the francesinha sandwich. I also tried 2 different Japanese restaurants (both were surprisingly pretty bad).

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Like I say, definitions matter.

I think Random House needs updating. According to that definition then there could be no cold soups, when there definitely are colds soups out there in the world.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I think Random House needs updating. According to that definition then there could be no cold soups, when there definitely are colds soups out there in the world.

This is where we can get into a greater debate on definitions. Definition by whom? The definition of words can change based on the subject matter at hand and the way in which writer/speaker uses the word. Even dictionary definitions change based on the dictionary subject matter. The Oxford-English dictionary is generally the authority on English words, but can have a different definition than a law dictionary, a religious dictionary, a technical/IT dictionary, a slang dictionary or a dictionary focused on regional common usage of a word.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This is where we can get into a greater debate on definitions. Definition by whom? The definition of words can change based on the subject matter at hand and the way in which writer/speaker uses the word. Even dictionary definitions change based on the dictionary subject matter. The Oxford-English dictionary is generally the authority on English words, but can have a different definition than a law dictionary, a religious dictionary, a technical/IT dictionary, a slang dictionary or a dictionary focused on regional common usage of a word.

Sure, all of that is valid. If you need a legal definition, go to a law dictionary, same for medical or psychiatry term etc.

If you need a layman's definition, I'd say wikipedia for a "mature, lots of edits" term/topic is probably best. Need a quick definition, go to any of the establish dictionaries. And as always, be prepared to defend or adjust as needed.

If you don't use a dictionary when disagreeing on what you believe is completely wrong use of a term, what are you going to do?

Nobody: Cereal is a soup
Edward: No, it's not
Nobody: Yes, it is. My mama says it is
Edward: No, it's not, your mama is wrong
Nobody: My mama isn't wrong, you're a ...

vs

Nobody: Cereal is a soup
Edward: No, it's not
Nobody: Yes, it is. My mama says it is
Edward: No, it's not, here's the wiki definition. If you read somewhere that cereal is a soup, provide the link, I'd like to read the rationale

[GrantDawg]

In your example, even the wiki isn't the definitive answer because wiki never is. The wiki is only the defining resource if both people agree it is. Nobody might never agree because he believes his mom is the defining resource and you don't. One side can't decide what the resource is then force that definition on the other.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

In your example, even the wiki isn't the definitive answer because wiki never is. The wiki is only the defining resource if both people agree it is. Nobody might never agree because he believes his mom is the defining resource and you don't. One side can't decide what the resource is then force that definition on the other.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

There are very little absolutes in this world. I believe in evaluating both sides, and in a lot of middle/grey areas (I'm an independent & moderate after all). In a world where there's not a lot of absolutes, there is the weight/strength of evidence/position.

In this very simple example, I have more weight to my argument because of a well edited wiki definition vs Nobody's mama's opinion. I add incrementally more weight to my argument with definitions from other layman's dictionaries.

So, in the court of public opinion and majority of people, the Wiki + Merriam + Random + Collins definition > Mama's definition. If Nobody still chooses to not accept the Wiki definition, and we can't even agree on the core/foundation for a discussion then ... we "agree to disagree", move on, and agree to not waste each other's time.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This is where we can get into a greater debate on definitions. Definition by whom? The definition of words can change based on the subject matter at hand and the way in which writer/speaker uses the word. Even dictionary definitions change based on the dictionary subject matter. The Oxford-English dictionary is generally the authority on English words, but can have a different definition than a law dictionary, a religious dictionary, a technical/IT dictionary, a slang dictionary or a dictionary focused on regional common usage of a word.

Yeah, this is why I avoid conversations that involve what is "woke". Because if you ask 30 different people what "woke" is then you get 50 different answers.

I imagine in a perfect world all argumentative parties would have a set definition but "woke" is fluid enough to change day by day.

[GrantDawg]

"Woke" is a word that has been purposely left vaguely defined. It is a magic word that fills in for whatever you dislike about the "other." Those people. You know the ones who do the bad things. They are all "woke."

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Congrats FOFC. One month since the last really heated and inflammatory argument (see post #1 above).

Closest since then is the Israel-Hamas thread but not near the vitriol; some sarcasm for sure but no personal attacks.

Let's see if we can get to month 2.

Congrats FOFC. We're at Month #2 now!

Definitely more heat in the Israel-Hamas thread, fair to say sarcasm level has ticked up. But nothing compared to before.

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

In case you guys were wondering

... we now know as “Kumbaya.” One prominent early version of “Come By Here” was adapted into Gullah (an English-based creole language spoken in coastal Georgia and South Carolina) which appears to have influenced the dialectical rendering of the song as “Kumbaya,” contrary to claims that the song and word themselves originate in Gullah.

[Edward64]

See Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Israeli-Hamas War (Oct 2023)

That thread started from the Biden to the Israeli-Hamas thread. And it has now devolved from talking about Joe & Israeli-Hamas war to personal attacks. So, I'm offering to continue in this catch-all-don't-bother-the-others thread.

(Thanks for the reminder, Flasch).

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We've all seen you make racist comments to members here like DaddyTorgo. You can play dumb but I and others know exactly what you are.

Appreciate bringing this up again. It's been a while and so thanks. At the very least, a refresher course on definitions vs your self made ones.

I hope your research is better this time. I mean it was pretty embarrassing for another member tell you how much you were wrong with Dems having filibuster proof majority in 2009-2011. BTW I tried to find your post about that, to link here but apparently it has been deleted (?) by you, funny how you can't just say "I made a mistake". But maybe we can get to the root cause of your "woe is me, racism this, racism that etc. ad-nauseum" and what you think are the pragmatic/realistic solutions (besides whining about it).

• But just for kicks, go ahead and provide source/link or it didn't happen

And as always, I like definitions. Need to have a baseline, foundation of understanding. Below is the wiki definition of racism. Feel free to provide non-twitter or tiktok links if you want.

Racism - Wikipedia

Racism is discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g. apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. The ideology underlying racist practices often assumes that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior. Racist ideology can become manifest in many aspects of social life.

I'm going to guess your argument will have more substance with me being prejudice/bigot. See wiki definition below. But then I suspect you fall under this category also.

Prejudice - Wikipedia

Prejudice[1] can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership.[2] The word is often used to refer to a preconceived (usually unfavourable) evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived personal characteristics, such as political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other perceived characteristics.[3]

But fair is fair, always good to do some "both sides". I guess if you are accusing me of being a racist, I can accuse you of being a antisemite = racist also? See wiki definition.

Antisemitism - Wikipedia

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism)[a] is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews.[2][3][4] This sentiment is a form of racism,[5][6] and a person who harbours it is called an antisemite.

In summary, "the pot calling the kettle black". But go ahead, provide the source/link or it didn't happen twitter-tiktok guy.

[CrimsonFox]

nonono stop making extra threads that aren't needed

[Edward64]

Talk to Flasch, he suggested it first. Tried to accomodate.

[MIJB#19]

C'mon, Edward64, you're better than that. Quoting Wikipedia isn't going to win any arguments around this place. The English language pages in particular are exposed as containing disinformation. Either quote the actual source or just don't quote at all.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

C'mon, Edward64, you're better than that. Quoting Wikipedia isn't going to win any arguments around this place.

It won't. But it is a guardrail and/or foundation for discussion especially when opposing parties don't agree on facts or definitions. Otherwise, we end up with above post

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Thread to hold extended & contentious Discussions

The English language pages in particular are exposed as containing disinformation. Either quote the actual source or just don't quote at all.

Fair enough. Admittedly, I use wiki as default catch all as it's been edited by various sources and is probably more impartial (e.g. less disinformation) than many other sources. I keep the superscripts/footnote # when there is one but I don't see any on the wiki paragraph that I quoted, so don't know how to provide "actual source".

FWIW, I did offer the below.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Below is the wiki definition of racism. Feel free to provide non-twitter or tiktok links if you want.

[Brian Swartz]

Hopefully I won't cause a problem by wading in here; I'm never sure if it's useful, so please ignore my post if you don't find it to be so.

To me the elephant in the room that has been danced around through this entire discussion is what the nature of war is. Just to use one well-known example, take the U-Boat warfare Germany used during WW1. This was criticized for targeting civilians, even though the allies absolutely did put weapons and other war materials on civilian ships. Meanwhile Germany countered that the allied blockade targeted German civilians in large part, and they were correct on that but it was also effective against the war economy as well.

Point being, we don't like facing the fact in modern times IMO that this kind of thing is what war is. There is no nice way to do it. I think most wars are unjustified, but in the cases where they are truly necessary, you have to do whatever is necessary to win the war, and the more quickly you can do so the better it is for all parties concerned.

In this particular case, from a moral standpoint both Hamas and Israel should be ostracized by the international community. Both have persisted in decades of war and are unwilling to have peace. Yes, Israel has offered a variety of peace deals but none of them have been remotely acceptable or reasonable. Until they are willing to offer one that accepts a strict boundary on their territory and offers Palestinians contiguous territory with reasonable access to resources rather than depending on what crumbs Israel sees fit to permit them, they are behaving as a rogue terrorist state and should be treated as such. For their part, Hamas as has been stated a number of times doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, and continues the river-to-the-sea rhetoric, so that speaks for itself.

I think the reason we don't do that is that it's in our national interests not to and we care a lot more about that than any moral stand. Same reason we've treated China as a valuable trade partner and not a horrific example of humans rights abuses for decades, starting long before the point where they became the superior economic power.

This war will last until both sides are willing to do what's necessary to end it. Who the stronger side is really doesn't matter, because neither can enforce an end to the fighting. Israel is generally capable of causing more misery for Hamas than vice-versa, but they can't stop them from fighting back whenever they get the chance. You can't force peace on people who repeatedly refuse it.

While we disagree on a great many particulars, I'm generally with Rainmaker on what the US and others should do; treat terrorist actions like what they are, and refuse to support those involved in any way until they stop.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Hopefully I won't cause a problem by wading in here; I'm never sure if it's useful, so please ignore my post if you don't find it to be so.

Always good to have someone else's POV without any personal attacks.

To me the elephant in the room that has been danced around through this entire discussion is what the nature of war is. Just to use one well-known example, take the U-Boat warfare Germany used during WW1. This was criticized for targeting civilians, even though the allies absolutely did put weapons and other war materials on civilian ships. Meanwhile Germany countered that the allied blockade targeted German civilians in large part, and they were correct on that but it was also effective against the war economy as well.
:
but in the cases where they are truly necessary, you have to do whatever is necessary to win the war, and the more quickly you can do so the better it is for all parties concerned.

The atomic bombs come to mind about "unnecessary" civilian deaths. The Dresden bombing/firestorm is another example. Were all those civilian deaths justified? After 4+ years of horrific war, right wrong, morality etc. all gets very muddy and grey.

IMO, Hiroshima is easily justified. Nagasaki is not as clear cut to me (e.g. could have waited longer than just 3 days). And I don't know enough about the rationale for Dresden.

While we disagree on a great many particulars, I'm generally with Rainmaker on what the US and others should do; treat terrorist actions like what they are, and refuse to support those involved in any way until they stop.

Sound like you are saying Israel is the "terrorist" and US should refuse to support Israel because of their terrorist actions?

If so, all I'd say is I disagree with you as I believe there should be more to the analysis/equation.

[Brian Swartz]

I'm saying both are terrorists/rogue governments/whatever term you want to apply, not just Israel, and yes the US should refuse to support them.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm saying both are terrorists/rogue governments/whatever term you want to apply, not just Israel, and yes the US should refuse to support them.

I get that logic, but I also fear the fallout of withdrawal of support.