This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Ksero
There are bigger things to worry about if you're trying to make soccer fair, if they can make detection systems for when someone fakes an injury i'll be happy.
Wait, you mean there are actually times when the football players
don't
fake?
It's really sad how bad the diving is, the league I played in from 15-17 was rough, with punches thrown and full out body checks, no cards were handed out, and people played through the injuries. I played the second half of a game with a cracked rib, even though i didn't know it was cracked at the time, my goalie got kneed in the face twice in one game, the first time he stayed in, second time he left with a concussion. My point is if 15-17 year olds can take full out hits, why do people who are in really good shape get "injured" so easily.
Post by
Squishalot
My point is if 15-17 year olds can take full out hits, why do people who are in really good shape get "injured" so easily.
Same reason that people retire injured from any sport. If you actually do get seriously injured that takes you out for half a season, that's millions of dollars of income down the drain.
Post by
301983
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
My point is if 15-17 year olds can take full out hits, why do people who are in really good shape get "injured" so easily.
Same reason that people retire injured from any sport. If you actually do get seriously injured that takes you out for half a season, that's millions of dollars of income down the drain.
There are two types of injuries, muscle injuries and bones ones. If you get muscle injuries often that means you are not in good shape at all and your muscles need to be tightened, if a bone injury happens at you that means you were just unlucky to be the victim.
I don't know if it's that simple. I've seen the sort of damage that football studs can do.
Post by
Ksero
My point is if 15-17 year olds can take full out hits, why do people who are in really good shape get "injured" so easily.
Same reason that people retire injured from any sport. If you actually do get seriously injured that takes you out for half a season, that's millions of dollars of income down the drain.
The impacts that people take in hockey multiple times EVERY GAME, are much harder than getting slide tackled in soccer, and yet you don't see people flopping all over the place in hockey (it's actually starting to happen more, but not for injuries).
And as far as i know you still get payed if you are injured.
This
picture
sums it up pretty well.
I'm not saying you can't get hurt playing soccer, but they fake injuries to get calls way more than in other sports. you see them on the ground grimacing holding an ankle, and then they are sprinting downfield for a pass 15 seconds later.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm not defending diving - don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that I can understand why they try to avoid injuries and why they act like such babies when it comes to minor scuffs, because they're concerned about what might end up being a serious injury, in a general sense. Diving when you're not even hit should be a cardable offence, IMO.
Post by
gamerunknown
Oh, also, I bought some Oreos to make milkshake. I wanted to see whether I could replicate the colours of that ad, so I added red food dye and it just kinda fell off the edges. Then it turned the whole milkshake pink. If I wanted to accomplish it I'd need to use double stuff I think.
Post by
Squishalot
Chefs don't use the basic off-the-shelf food dyes that we can buy at the supermarket, because it tends to water down whatever it is that you're working with. That's not a good idea when you're working with sugar and icing.
My girlfriend uses a much more concentrated gel-based dye for her cakework. I'm sure Elhonna would have some ideas as well. Either way, without ruining the actual milkshake / oreo cream, you can get a much stronger colour by using something other than normal dye.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
For the record, I support the Salvation Army.
After
this
?
Yes even after that.
Why? Because of
this.
Do I believe in all their beliefs? Obviously not. Does the previous article make me sick? Yes. But they do still do a lot of good. I'm not going to say they are a bad company just cause of their hate-filled spite for me, when they very much help many others. They want me to die? Fine. Kill me. But please continue helping those innocent children and non-hateful folk that need help. I can sacrifice my personal reputation to them. Cause really? I don't give a crap how they feel about me.
Post by
MyTie
Salvation Army's official response to that one individual's idea that homosexuals should die:The Salvation Army believes in the sanctity of all human life and believes it would be inconsistent with Christian teaching to call for anyone to be put to death. We consider every person to be of infinite value, and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and preserved.So, Fatal, there is no "they". It was one person.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Salvation Army's official response to that one individual's idea that homosexuals should die:The Salvation Army believes in the sanctity of all human life and believes it would be inconsistent with Christian teaching to call for anyone to be put to death. We consider every person to be of infinite value, and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and preserved.So, Fatal, there is no "they". It was one person.
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. . .
They know God’s decree, that those who practise such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practise them.
That one encounter was one man. But their belief as stated in the Doctrine remains. And until they change their Doctrine, I really don't care what their 'official response' is. Their belief is based on/reflected by the Doctrine and the Doctrine says I should die.
Post by
MyTie
Wait... so they have a doctrine other than the Bible, which they believe is right, but will actively speak the opposite, except some of them?
Post by
FatalHeaven
Wait... so they have a doctrine other than the Bible, which they believe is right, but will actively speak the opposite, except some of them?
I'm too tired to keep arguing this with you. Yes they have a Doctrine. Yes it says I should die. Feel free to believe differently.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#14: Should Trident Be Replaced? No not the gum, people!
In 1952 the United Kingdom became the third country to test and independently developed nuclear weapons. The country continues to have nuclear weapons in its arsenal and is one of the five nuclear weapons states set out in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty of 1968. However despite having independently developed nuclear weapons the United Kingdom now cooperates with the United States in developing its nuclear weapons. Britain’s current nuclear deterrent is maintained by four Vanguard submarines with the first having been commissioned in 1993. These submarines each carry sixteen trident missiles which were designed by the United States and are provided to the UK by a modification of the previous the Polaris Sales Agreement.
The submarines are expected to remain in service until the 2020s. In 2006 the white paper ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’ argued that Britain needs to retain a nuclear deterrent but did not take the final decision on the replacement of trident or if it is retained how much of a deterrent is needed.
But because of the long lead time necessary for designing and building replacements work has already started on some of the components which would be necessary for new submarines such as the reactor cores. Despite this the government maintains the final decision on trident has not yet been made and is expected in 2016.
Post by
MyTie
Wait... so they have a doctrine other than the Bible, which they believe is right, but will actively speak the opposite, except some of them?
I'm too tired to keep arguing this with you. Yes they have a Doctrine. Yes it says I should die. Feel free to believe differently.
My intention wasn't to argue, but to try to understand their beliefs.Trident
Uhm. I don't know much about the UK's nuclear submarines. I feel that the UK needs to have nuclear arms. It is a major piece of deterrent for using nuclear arms vs Europe.
Post by
gamerunknown
The only other country to have nuclear weapons in Europe is France, which is an ally (yes, despite historical animosity). In fact, there are no serious threats to UK sovereignty in Europe (other than the European Parliament in Brussels, whose threat wouldn't be resolved by a nuclear attack). I don't think the cost of maintaining nuclear weapons is worth their benefit as a deterrent given every attack on British soils in the past two decades has been domestic.
Post by
MyTie
The only other country to have nuclear weapons in Europe is France, which is an ally (yes, despite historical animosity). In fact, there are no serious threats to UK sovereignty in Europe (other than the European Parliament in Brussels, whose threat wouldn't be resolved by a nuclear attack). I don't think the cost of maintaining nuclear weapons is worth their benefit as a deterrent given every attack on British soils in the past two decades has been domestic.
I was seeing the UK's subs as a nuke deterrent to Russia/China/N Korea etc.
Post by
Monday
Because obviously, the UK only needs to worry about Europe.
Edit: And MyTie beat me to it.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.