BTH
-
Posts
13656 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by BTH
-
-
Did you know that a true theist is actually also staunchly anti-religion? Think about it and how that can be possible.
I'm not sure I agree with what I think you mean (--> that there are multiple religions and a theist only believes in one, thinking the rest are nonsense, therefore he is "anti-religion." I think he would still have to qualify as religious because of the one he believes in). But if you explained yourself it wouldn't be very controversial of you.
-
Hey now! You can't just come on the controversial thread and state things like that without giving reasons! How can we argue your points and enter into a civil debate when your statements are so simplistic and grade 3? ;-)
Explain how or why they suck, and we can go from there!
No, things are more controversial when you don't explain.
-
1
-
-
I admittedly have watched and followed just about zero hockey this season --- but the amount of panic on this board seems incredibly inflated. We're what, 8 games in and there's already talk of the season being over and of firing the coach?
Chill out. When team records don't match with statistics monitoring their actual play, we must assume that the numbers will eventually balance out. It isn't rational to predict that they will continue to lose 7 out of every 8 games if nothing changes. A hockey game is the simultaneous tossing of a million dice over and over for 60 minutes. A team as talented as this will not finish at the bottom of the league. They took a worse roster to 6th in the East last year.
Before the season starts, people says things like, "I hope they give X at least 20 games on the top line so that he can earn his spot there and have a chance to develop chemistry." Four losses into the season people are outraged when changes aren't made. You should all be glad Martin and Gauthier aren't so ruled by emotion and insecurity or the team would really be in trouble.
-
1
-
-
Man I love that series! I read em all a couple years ago and was so excited when the newest one game out!
I love the series. I just hope Martin gets them all out sometime this decade... He's taking his time, and he does NOT look like a healthy man!
I'm hoping that the show's success will inspire him to write faster (3 years per book?). At the end of the fifth book, the series is pretty well set up for a lot to happen in a relatively short amount of time. I think it's still possible to end the series in two books. I think he's got about a decade before he starts going senile.
-
Are there any new good series, or is it a continuation of the usual weak fare?
Game of Thrones, of course.
And I told you the book would come out one day!
-
Hmm... could this be the first Habs game of the year I see?
-
What controversy did Don Cherry start, Brian?
-
Did anyone in Montreal go to the Portishead concert at the Old Port on Friday? I missed it but it must have been amazing.
-
So who else is an Atheist?
I don't think atheism is controversial. That being said, I am not only an atheist but staunchly anti-religion, which obviously is controversial. A fan of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Dan Dennett, James Randi, etc. Oh, George Carlin and (usually) Bill Maher too, of course. lol But I prefer Carlin's talk about fascism and fascist use of language.
-
I just noticed Craig Rivet is listed as UFA!
Is there anything listed about Karl Dykhuis?!
-
Nope. The actress who played Chloe in 24 is in it and she is not the least bit funny. I've seen her stand-up "comedy" before. Lame, lame, lame.
I never knew she was a stand up comedian. But after watching her videos..... Lame, lame, lame. The only reason why I might support this actress is because she was in Punch-Drunk Love.
-
For Fanpuck since he dislikes talk of politics in the Jets logo thread.
I'm not necessarily looking to start a specific conversation with this thread. It is simply a place to start a conversation that would be too controversial in another section due to its political, philosophical, religious, or generally provocative nature. Also a place (maybe) to move off-topic thread into.
This is not a place to post random offensive comments*.
*Unless they are funny.
-
In fact I have no problem with love of one's country
This comment makes no sense to me.
A train of thought that would dictate that no one should be proud of their community and by proxy - their city, province and country.
After all, it's all luck of the draw. No reason to be invested in a place you didn't choose.
That is bananas.
I don't pretend to be an uber - flag waving Canadian.
I'm not interested in war or being part of a conquering nation but I'm pretty happy with the country I live in.
When I travel I have no problem mentioning where I'm from for the simple fact that it's a nice place to live. A luxury not everyone enjoys.
It's funny that when it comes to topics of pride and country the conversation will splinter off into 1000 debates and rants.
Though not one of us has any problem unconditionally being proud of / worshiping / devoting literally 100's of hours a year to a hockey team.
Crying tears of joy or being emotionally exhausted at the end of a Cup run. Halfheartedly plotting the murder of a certain Bruins defencemen.
These things are normal and ok but being proud of your country is delusional?
Hahahaha.
You two are confusing comfort/love/satisfaction with pride. Pride is what you should feel (if at all - but that's another conversation) when you accomplish something, or, at the very least, when you vicariously feel proud of your peer for their accomplishment. You should not feel proud of something that was completely out of your control, that thinking is delusional. That being said, of course we're all lucky and happy to be living in Canada or the USA instead of in Afghanistan.
By the way, I don't feel proud of myself when the Habs win a game, nor do I worship or "devote" myself to the team. On this note, I actually think sports would be taken a lot more seriously as a practice if fans stopped devoting themselves to a single team and feeling like disloyalty to that company is the greatest offense possible. Imagine if every season, on any given night even, most people cheered for the team whose style of play they liked more and felt no compulsion to be loyal a single brand for their entire lives. In other words, bandwagon jumping. It would force teams to compete because they would not have an unshakable fan base supporting them no matter how weak their product. I can understand wanting to watch a single team develop over a few consecutive seasons and wanting to be a part of your local community but the black-and-white, us-vs-them, slavish mentality behind most sports fandom is imo not very healthy or interesting.
Also, I don't think pride in a sports team is as nonsensical as pride in your heritage. That kind of pride is different because it is not necessarily delusional to feel pride vicariously through hockey players. "Wow, Gorges broke his ankle and kept playing. I'm so proud of him" makes a lot more sense than "The country I happened to be born in is better than most. I'm so proud of myself." The first statement is relatively harmless. The second leads to vulnerability to propaganda and then dangerous actions.
-
Nothing is wrong with a little pride in your nation, nationalism can be taken too far especially when military is brought into it... but pride in ones nation and culture is great by my standards, I think it is needed. Canada is a great nation. No harm in being proud. I feel good knowing I am Canadian.
I too am happy that I live in Canada as opposed to Saudi Arabia but what is there to be proud about? My living in Canada has nothing to do with me, I was simply lucky to be born here. Pride therefore would be delusional.
-
YeahBud, on 12 September 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:Its becoming harder to ignore the relationship between corporate hockey and the war machine.
I have noticed this too.
Embedded in each sport is a set of values. Hockey is all about manliness, toughness, and respect. Blocking shots, taking a hard hit, and playing through injury are three of the most respectable things a teammate can do, while players that dive, are small, are non-physical, are European or French Canadian, turn down fights, or fight smaller players are to be avoided. Even if a player does fight, his reputation can take a hit if he fights in the wrong way. e.g. Subban throws a punch at Lupul too early therefore he is a pansy. In middle of a fight, one player grabs the other's legs and flips him on his back, therefore he is a coward that doesn't fight like a man. A player with a visor fights one without a visor therefore he is dishonourable and lacks class. "Slew-footing" is one of the most despicable crimes one can commit.
Hockey players have historically rejected change, especially in regards to player safety. Jacques Plante's manliness was questioned when he insisted on a mask. Helmets were rejected by many players at first. Many players still don't wear visors. Now there are controversies over hits to the head and fighting, yet the majority of players are adamant about keeping violence in the game. For many of them, it is probably what attracted them to the sport.
The conservatism of hockey culture became especially obvious last season. Many of the biggest controversies of the year were of one of two kinds and, as a Habs fan, we got an in-depth look at both kinds: 1) Player X is too disrespectful (the controversy among conservative fans), 2) Player X is too dangerous (the controversy among liberal fans).
If there was one thing to learn from last season it is that over-celebrating an overtime goal, being eccentric in interviews, attempting fancy moves in the shootout, and taunting your opponents are more serious crimes than driving somebody's head into a post or punching them point blank in the face. The league's most hated players are those that are "disrespectful" by showing too much personality and paying too little attention to tradition, while the league's most beloved players, on the other hand, are generally those that can outmuscle and overpower others. Hence the popularity of Jody Shelley in Columbus and goons in general around the league.
Those that play recklessly and injure their opponents are worth defending because they are making "hockey plays" and, after all, "hockey is a rough sport." This reasoning leads to us saying that Chara is a hero for personifying conservative hockey values while targeting players like Subban, Lapierre, and Omark as blemishes on the game.
There was a backlash to each of these controversies but usually only from fans of the team whose player was being criticized. The "Player X is too dangerous" arguments were not just minority views, but were even shot down by league executives like Bettman and Campbell. Case in point, their dubbing of Chara's hit on Pacioretty as an unfortunate hockey play. They reinforced the commonly held belief that injuring each other is an unavoidable consequence of hockey and that we must therefore embrace violence and let the NHL work by a sort of "natural selection" process where only the biggest bullies succeed, the others being forced to retire early with concussion problems.
These values can definitely be applied to the "real" world. For a comedic example, look at how George Carlin famously compares the rural 19th Century values of baseball versus the modern, militaristic values of football.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXacL0Uny0
That being said, I like the look of this logo. And it's not like calling your team the Canadiens, Canucks, Maple Leafs, or Senators is much better. Too nationalistic for my taste.
-
I don't want to sound like I think Avery is my fav player or a role-model and all, but when did he get a suspension for a cheap shot or causing an injury to someone else? Most of his trouble are with his mouth and I believe that with more maturity now, and surrounded by a core of good vets, he could really contribute to this team with his energy and toughness. He can go in front of the net and score on occasion as well. Precisely the kind of player we lack on the 4th line, and a player that can jump on the 1st line for a couple shift to mix things up.Avery has never been a dirty player. An agitator? Yes.... an asshole on the ice? Absolutely? But what is there on his resume as far as dirty hits go? I can't think of any. The guy gets lumped in with players like Matt Cooke all the time, but I don't see him doing the same stuff. That said I don't want him, because he scares me as a locker room cancer.
He's not as dangerous as Matt Cooke but he is cheap.
-
What about Sean Avery ? We don't have any agitator or guy that can get under the skin of the opponent and fight when needed. And he has some offensive abilities too. He's a specimen, but lot more intelligent than most think. Anyways according to what I remember from ex-teammates talking about him last year.
MTL is not like NYR. It's a different dynamic. We have a great and solid core of vets/leaders, unlike the Rangers where the Captain is a young Callahan and the team is rebuilding around Richards, Gaborik and Dubinsky. Avery here would be surrounded by vets like Gionta, Gill, Gomez and Cammalleri. He would not be a loose cannon out here.
"Our organization believes that the players’ safety in hockey has become a major concern, and that this situation has reached a point of urgency. At risk are some of the greatest professional athletes in the world, our fan base and the health of our sport at all levels. Players’ safety in hockey must become the ultimate priority and the situation must be addressed immediately. As a proud father of three hockey players, I want to help create a healthy and safe experience for them, and I certainly never want any family to go through what the Pacioretty’s are experiencing at this moment.
We understand and appreciate hockey being a physical sport, but we do not accept any violent behavior that will put the players’ health and safety at risk. On this specific issue, I am asking for the support of the 29 other NHL owners, to address urgently this safety issue. And I am willing to play a leadership role in coordinating this group effort."
- Geoff Molson
If the Habs sign Avery or anybody like him, they are hypocrites and will be called on it.
-
http://www.habsworld.net/out.php?12763
"Andrei, who signed a one-year contract with the Canadiens in June, told Belarussian sports website Goals.by this week that he isn't on very good terms with the veteran bench boss."
I guess it means there's a good chance Kostitsyn will be traded soon, seeing as this makes it sound like there's not much of a chance he re-signs at the end of the year.
-
http://www.habsworld.net/out.php?12763
"Andrei, who signed a one-year contract with the Canadiens in June, told Belarussian sports website Goals.by this week that he isn't on very good terms with the veteran bench boss."
-
According to TSN two former Habs Sopel and (soon to be announced) Kovalev are going to the KHL. Both of them had a slight chance of returning to Montreal this year, I think (not that I expected either of them, but they might have been considered).
-
I might be drunk, but trading AK46 is the worst mistake Gauthier could do.
Do you think AK's going to have a breakout season?
I would be willing to trade him in a deal for Semin or Hemsky for sure.
-
The difference, and I don't want to get repetitive here, is Carbo and Gainey! Talbot, Madden, Paulsson... These shutdown guys are critical. I suppose Plek could be that guy. Bergeron was this year and is a Selke candidate as well as a second liner. I thought Pyatt was on his way to that. A pure shutdown forward. It's hard for your first line centre to be a goal scorer when he's also your shutdown guy. The only thing close to that in the bottom two lines is Moen. Eller showed glimpes of defensive prowess in the playoffs.
Moen used to be considered to be one of those guys too. Those bottom six specialists mostly have phony reputations. I really doubt that Jeff Halpern is significantly worse than Talbot, Madden, and Pahlsson. For the most part they are ordinary grinders that won a Cup. The depth players on contending teams are always glorified.
-
If all they need is a Halpern replacement, why didn't they keep Halpern?
-
Vokun is a huge pickup for Washington...and at an unbelievable price. To the degree that netminding was a major reason for Washington's failure to take it to the next level, that's a very significant shift in the playoff balance in the East.
And compare this to the way Philly settled the same problem.
1.5M for Vokoun vs 51M for Bryzgalov.
Controversial Thread
in The Lounge
Posted
It's waaaaaaaay more than the .01% you claim (more than 50% of Americans take every single word of the Bible as literal truth, for example) and the damages done to society are vast no matter what the actual percentage is. You only choose to count "the crazies," the type to blow themselves up or to protest at a gay soldier's funeral but I think even mainstream religious beliefs and practices are dangerous for society. If for no other reason, because the propagation of mass delusion is obviously harmful to the development of critical thinking abilities and because faith in a supernatural realm can be, and is routinely, used to justify outrageous and wicked things. Even mainstream religious beliefs negatively effect society significantly in several ways* and since 9/11 there has been a growing movement of the opinion that we don't need to, in the name of cultural relativism, respect beliefs and practices that are looking more and more liable to spell the end of mankind (Islamic doctrines on martyrdom and jihad + modern nuclear weapons).
I think religious moderates like you bear a responsibility to stop waving away criticisms of religious practices and to take seriously the threat of religion on international security. When you make apologies for the "99.9%" of religious people, you are encouraging the suffering of millions. Ordinary religious people have, for religious reasons, committed genocides, tortures, rapes, honour killings, murders of homosexuals, human sacrifices, practiced slavery, systematically abused children physically and psychologically, genital mutilation of children, oppressed tens of millions of women, etc... Many of these practices are the norm in their societies. We are not talking about the fringes of religion here, we are talking about the systematically taught doctrines taken seriously by people who really believe what they say they believe and who number in the hundreds of millions, if not billions.
The comparison to Habs fans is not apt because 1) the people that riot generally are not even Habs fans and 2) they are not rioting because of some message openly being preached to them by the Canadiens organization or the NHL. When religious people do evil things it is because of their religion. The doctrines themselves are evil. The extremists are not misinterpreting their texts or misusing religion. They are the ones following it correctly.
*Further explanation forthcoming if asked of me.