Jump to content


TheCheshireCat

Members
  • Posts

    1,132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

TheCheshireCat's Achievements

Scout Team

Scout Team (7/21)

80

Reputation

  1. I have yet to see anyone mention Mike Leach. Offensive genius who is working at Washington State. I have to think he would be interested if the opportunity arose.
  2. The ironic thing is someone close to him actually did die, and yet he faked a death to get sympathy and publicity.
  3. Case in point about no flow. Agreed. However, I could make the same argument for money or holding a position of power. Do you have a moral stance against money as well? And further, the death toll for WWII was around 49 million. Cause: one man's personal philosophy and us-vs.-them ideology. Since you mentioned the crusades, the estimated death toll for the first crusade on Jerusalem was 40,000. Hm. I agree fully that religion can lead to large death tolls, but so can a non-religious philosophy. So can greed for money or power. If you have a moral stance against high death tolls, get some perspective and see that religion is just one slice of the pie. So you're criticizing religions for only caring for just those "who share...religious predilections" and yet you would like to condemn those philosophies that "divide us." Said differently, you want to get rid of any form of thought that opposes yours... wow. And you also propose we embrace schools of thought that unify humanity under one banner. Okay Hitler. Whose banner? Yours? The people who think like you do? Your propositions are laughable. You are no different than the zealous religious people you criticize. You despise someone who doesn't think like you do, you propose that we get rid of any mode of thought that doesn't fit your definition of unity. That is the exact same thing, just at the other end of the spectrum. Congratulations. followed by: The icing on the cake, and just another example of how you are no different from other narrow-minded fanatics, religious or otherwise.
  4. 1.) That's inherently woven into his belief system, as his missionary work attests to. Proselytizing to "save" by influencing and persuading with an attached message of "or else." 2.) That's great. It would be even better if that selfless giving wasn't coupled with an omnipresent pursuit of manipulating the mindset of other human beings. Which brings under scrutiny that idea of "selfless." Was it done simply to help those in need, or to propagate what he himself holds up as his primary objective? A little advice: If you're going to call someone a fool, you're going to want to make sure you articulate yourself properly. I don't own anything called "a fool." Thanks for your thoughts, though (Any time anyone wants to move this discussion to the proper forum I'll be happy to take it up there. I'd let it go, but I'm not going to let a derogatory comment about my intelligence go unanswered.) I'm just going to play Devil's Advocate here. First off, your rebuttals are like wading through mud. Stringing a bunch of big words together doesn't make your point any more valid or make you seem any more intelligent, especially when the writing has no flow whatsoever. 1. Again, you're making a broad assumption based on your perception of a certain belief system. People don't necessarily believe every single aspect of a philosophy, religion, etc. And if he hasn't come out directly and said so (as you've admitted), you're criticizing him for what exactly... thinking it? So... you essentially dislike a certain individual based on what he thinks/believes. Hm. I'll let you figure out where I'm going with that point, since you're good at reading minds. 2. Awkward phrase aside, this is one point I do not understand. First, I don't get the idea that Tebow is trying to manipulate anyone. He's worn his beliefs on his sleeve, that's for sure, and it gets a lot of media attention, but that means he's being manipulative? Second, if we're going to call that manipulative, show me someone who isn't manipulative? Walk into any lecture hall in any University, any board room in any business or campaign office, etc. and tell me they're not trying to "manipulate" you too. Guess what? No matter what philosophy you subscribe to, people are trying to change your mind about anything and everything, all the time. About the latest science findings, about what to buy, about who to vote for... I could list off for hours. If you were that adamant about not being persuaded or manipulated, you wouldn't be happy with anything or anyone. Everyone pushes their own agenda in one way or another, don't be naive. And reading your above posts, I find it funny when people bash religion for being corrupt, for being a primary factor in the cause of millions of deaths, etc. Are these things true? Absolutely. But businesses are corrupt, politics are corrupt, and so is just about any other institution you can think of. And all of them have led to many deaths at certain times. Philosophy itself is guilty of everything you're accusing religion of. Hitler had a philosophy too, and look at how many deaths that led to (Yes, Hitler by default was Christian, but let's be honest here, he had his own twisted sense of morality, justice, and idealism and claimed Germany as the only God). So did Stalin, who claimed that religion was a drug that blinded the masses. Again, millions of deaths. Are you then proposing that we condemn philosophy because people can abuse it? Should we abandon business, government, etc. because they can be corrupted? Like anything else, none of these is inherently corrupt or evil. It's the people who abuse them that are - it comes down to human nature. That same human nature can be used to do incredible acts of good. Philosophy, religion, etc. has been used by people like Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Ghandi, and many others to do incredible and beautiful things. There are two edges to the sword, and it depends on who wields it. That's my rant. So get real - the kid does his best to better his life and the lives of others and he "sticks to his guns" just like you do. When there are people like Stalin, or people who rape and murder and shoot up schools and office buildings, criticizing someone who isn't hurting anyone - whether you agree with him or not - is f'ing ridiculous. Get off your intellectual, pompous high horse and open your eyes.
  5. Meyer is a great coach, and Hoke looks to be on the right path, but that's no reason to think we're sunk. In fact, I am encouraged by it. Part of the reason I believe SEC teams do so well (besides a lot of good athletes, which is undeniable), is that they play such a rigorous and competitive schedule. If you have Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State as being above average to elite teams every year, that is some serious competition year in and year out. Our players might take a beating their first two years, but by the time they're older, they are battle-tested and that much better for it. You get better by continually playing good opponents. I think the strengthening of our conference will only help Nebraska in the long run.
  6. OH MY GOD. 6 hours ago people were talking about getting a win against Michigan possibly bcs bowl. Now we're gonna lose out and cant compete with top 25 teams? Get a grip. To be fair, something significant happened in between then and now: we got manhandled by a quarterback who has thrown 14 interceptions this year, averages only 45 yards rushing per game, and a defense that just came off probably the worst year of the program in the past half century.
  7. We have the talent. We are not developing it properly. And if anyone tries to argue that, think about the mostly mistake-free, disciplined, organized football you see out of FAR lesser schools because coaches know how to instill technique. Teams like Iowa State, Stanford, etc. They have nowhere near the overall talent, and yet they do not commit the turnovers or penalties we do. There are so many lesser programs that play crisp football that it makes me sick.
  8. It's not about winning. It's about showing the starters that they will not be allowed to play if they don't perform. It's about giving other guys a chance. It's about giving experience to backups.
  9. Martinez plays DECENTLY when all else is going well. When we're in a hole, or need a fast score, etc., he reverts back to old form.
  10. I really do think it was mostly the offense. Our time of possession puts an unfair amount of burden on the defense. That... and Thorell/Cassidy.
  11. I honestly think it's our offense/special teams and not really our defense. We've held the ball for 14 minutes?! What the f#*k? Put in Carnes and the freshman, get them some game experience, it honestly can't get any worse.
  12. Probably because Hoke hired the best men available, not just guys he played dickgrab with back in middle school.
  13. That chance for a comeback died when that moron ran into the punter. There won't be another. Dennard Robinson looks like a Peyton Manning/Michael Vick hybrid against our sh**ty defense. And our offense has returned to 2009 form. Year 4 basically the same as Year 1 - swimming in mediocrity.
  14. Did Bo call a punt block or was that just the player's fault? Because if Bo called that, it was incredibly stupid with the undisciplined way we've been playing.
×
×
  • Create New...