(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		04-23-23 10:13 PM
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User Post
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-26-06 02:01 AM, in why do people push their beliefs? Link
There's little defense for the act of enforcing one's religious predilections on somebody else, but trying to convert an opponent's political biases is another story. Surely I can't justify trying to make you into a Christian if you're steadfastly against it, but in other cases - gay marriage is one example you use - the repurcussions of an opinion can affect more than just the person who holds that opinion. If you're a Christian or a Buddhist or a Satanist or whatever, it doesn't affect me, but if you're for gay marriage or abortion or gun control or the war in Iraq, then it just might. I think it's important to differentiate between issues that are purely personal and those that can alter the political or cultural complexion of a state.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-01-06 02:03 PM, in Israel invades the Gaza Strip Link
Originally posted by ziffhasnoaim/password
It takes a lot more balls tof ight to have your homeland back than to fly an F-15 and bomb a power station knocking out the power to millions of innocent people. Or you know, firing a rocket at a bunch of innocent beach goers.
Combating an irrational oppressor is cowardly, yet blowing yourself up and taking a group of school children with you is "fighting for your homeland." Ok, Ziff.

Originally posted by ziffhasnoaim/password
Of course, I don't put it above an American like you to sympathize with spineless tactics.
Nice little jab.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-01-06 07:24 PM, in Israel invades the Gaza Strip Link
Originally posted by ziffhasnoaim/password
Just taking what he said and turning it around. I'm not putting any stake in those words. Nor do they hold any inherent meaning. Just pointing out how stupid an extreme argument on either side seems. The one I forwarded makes the Palestinians seem like bloody heroes. Which, of course, most of the violent fighters *aren't*. That said, Vyper just kind of shoots holes all over any case for Israel that could be made - general ignorance and lacking any semblence of reason. I'm hoping that you understand that both of those arguments are ridiculously faulty.
Your post lacks any sense of Devil's advocacy whatsoever. You wrote what you did in a style that unabashedly suggests your own personal adherence, rather than a style that would indicate the the point you've made is one that is supposed to be self-evidently false. Don't blame me for not "getting" a message that is not exactly obvious.

Originally posted by ziffhasnoaim/password
As for the point "irrational oppressor"? What? Are you saying that the Palestinians are a) irrational when their homeland has been taken from them and are being forced into a 3rd world state? or b) are managing to suppress, repress, and oppress the far more powerful Israeli state and Jewish culture in the region in general?
All I'm saying is that they flagrantly deny their own self-proclaimed "religion of peace" by twisting it into the justification with which they declare violent and suicidal war on a neighbor who may (would?) have originally been happy to live and let live. The Israelis are not blameless - hell, I don't even have a personal stance on this issue that would favor one side over the other - but I couldn't stand without calling you on what you said earlier.

Originally posted by Arwon
The best thing is it took me several reads to figure out which side was which.
So the Israelis are known for their suicide bombers?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-08-06 02:15 PM, in Sex Ed Link
I'm not in favor of such lessons being left to the parent, mainly because I know how terribly embarassed I would have been if it were my parents' job to explore that topic. As far as I'm concerned, it should be left to schools.

However, as with most other questions of domestic education versus formal schooling, I'm all in favor of a child's parents being given full knowledge, and full control, of what their child is exposed to. If parent x does not want Junior to know about contraception, either because it's against his religion or for whatever other reason, then Junior should be exempt from those lessons. The exception comes when a child is of a certain age - say 16, somewhat arbitrarily - when parental control in curricula should be cut back or even eliminated. There are many "facts of life" that a child absolutely must be taught, but that a parent has a right to withhold when that student is still young and impressionable.

As for what should actually be included in lesson plans, I'd argue that STDs, birth control, and similar issues are irremovable. Abortion might be appropriate as well, plus the usual anatomy and mechanics lessons. I'm all for abstinence being included as a serious topic - that's not to say that it need be of absolute primacy, but that it cannot be brushed aside as religious mumbo jumbo.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-10-06 05:03 PM, in Thought on abortion? Link
Originally posted by Neitzluber
Abortion is murder, and anyone requesting it should be punished as someone paying a killer would, and doctors who practice it should be given 10 to 20 years in prison, like any other killer.
Ok.

Originally posted by Neitzluber
[...] if a woman gets raped, she should take the ''day after'' pill.
...which is the same thing as abortion.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-11-06 12:44 AM, in Soccer Link
This thread could just as easily be in the sports and entertainment forum, but I don't see it getting the attention I hope for if it's down there. In any case, it will ideally turn into a debate (or at least a discussion) of some sort, and so I justify my decision to place it here.

It's been pointed out frequently on sports television, especially since Italy's World Cup win over France, that to decide a game by penalty kicks is of questionable, even dubious, utility. Some have gone so far as to make the analogy that it would never be acceptable to decide the World Series with a home run derby, nor could a game of basketball ever end with a slam dunk competition or a round of HORSE, and it it likewise ludicrous to reconcile a tied soccer game with the minigame of sorts that is a penalty shootout.

In short, is it right for the World Cup final, or for any soccer game of any consequence, to conclude with a penalty shootout? Does that really prove who the superior team is? I'll provide my opinion as soon as someone else has said their piece, just so I don't feel like I'm talking to myself.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-11-06 03:50 PM, in Soccer Link
Let me try to put my own opinion into words.

Ultimately, the purpose of any sort of tournament, or any single game for that matter, is to discern which participating team is superior to those against which it is competing. In soccer, I first found myself seeking to spell out exactly what it means for a team to be "superior." That is, I put together an idea of what capabilities and attributes a good soccer team possesses. Among them are such fields as:

- good communication between players.
- skillful coaching and management.
- technical proficiency, insomuch as mastery of fundamental skills (passing, positioning) and, if not mastery, at least awareness of other more advanced skills (remaining onside, making accurate crosses).
- mastery of fatigue. As soccer is a game in which players can expect to be on the field for 90 minutes or more, it is vital that preparing for fatigue is addressed both by individual players and as a team.
- maintaining individually skillful players in each position (including forwards, goalkeepers, etc).
- having a roster with such depth as to assure substitutions that do not disrupt or even cripple the players already on the field.
- individual "stars" - that is to say, one or more single players who are standouts and can, to some degree, carry the rest of the team.

Now, that is by no means a comprehensive list, but I think it is fairly thorough and essentially accurate. Of course, as a game of soccer would seek to discern whichever of the two teams has those attributes, or which displays each more strongly, an ultimate decision-making event - in this case, a penalty shootout to resolve a tied game - should reflect those fields.

Without addressing each of my stated points individually, I can say that one gets the sense that all of those contributing factors involve teamwork as opposed to invidual prowess. Even the idea of a single superstar carrying the team as a whole, or a skillful player residing in each position, includes the idea that such players have a larger supporting cast to facilitate their endeavors: what good is a star forward when the midfield can't get the ball to him?

I'll stop my diatribe and just try to sum up what I'm thinking, because I feel myself veering off track a bit. Ultimately, as a goalkeeper for a number of years - hardly professionally, of course, but nonetheless - I can sympathize with the idea of being stuck in a net and having guys line up to take potshots from twelve yards out. Even with the most practiced goalie, one who is adept at reading the feet of a person who's lining up for a shot, it amounts to little more than a guessing game. A flip of the coin, if you will. I can guess right and make the save, or guess wrong and miss it. Or, I can get lucky and he can choke and just miss the net altogether.

In a game of such magnitude as a World Cup final, you don't want the "wrong" team to win. Surely any number of variables can lead to that result, but none would be as random or as arbitrary as a shootout. An unlucky red card can tilt the odds against the better team, but is that disadvantaged team really superior if they cannot display the integral skill of avoiding or managing fouls and cards? Conversely, the smallest bit of luck - a French player hitting the crossbar instead of aiming only inches lower - can decide the victor. That one miskick, that one missed PK, decided everything.

If it were my job to propose a solution, the idea of penalty kicks would be entirely erased from the game (except to award to players who have been fouled in the box during the course of normal play). Your team has 22 players, let them all play! As it stands, maybe fourteen or fifteen of a World Cup roster will ever see the field, and the remainder seem to be token names that might as well be anyone. When overtime has finished, instead of lining up for penalty kicks, play should continue as normal. Except, substitutions should be allowed at will. Those seven or eight guys who are sitting on the side should get to see some playing time. After all, isn't it better for a team to have 22 solid players than ten or eleven really good ones? As it stands, your eleven starters and the three subs are supposed to represent your entire country's soccer identity.

I wrote this post over the course of an hour, in between breaks to watch a bit of TV, so it probably sounds really disjointed. But whatever.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-11-06 03:55 PM, in Thought on abortion? Link
Originally posted by Arwon
No, you consider it the same thing as abortion. Big massive difference.
No, the poster's comment suggested that he considers it abortion.

I got the sense that he thinks the "morning after pill" prevents conception rather than expels a fertilized egg.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-11-06 10:10 PM, in Soccer Link
Originally posted by Arwon
That's funny, I thought the deciding factor was 'scoring more goals'.

Ho hum.
And does a penalty shootout really simulate the real-game situation of scoring a goal, or is it as close a simulation to that as a home run derby is to hitting a real-game home run? Hitting a baseball 500 feet is easier when the ball's being lobbed at you by a batting practice pitcher, just like scoring a goal is easier when you have a spot kick at twelve yards without a defender in sight.

Originally posted by Kasdarack
Penalty kicks are part of the game. There have to be certain penalties for certain offenses. You can't take them out of the game just to avoid having them decide a game here and there. Same thing with penalty shots in hockey.

Was the game decided by penalty kicks or a shootout? because those are two completely different things.

Still, I can see reasons for a shootout being necessary when a draw isn't an option. Games can't go on forever. There has to be some sort of ultimate time limit. Shootoffs are part of the game too, so it's just useless bickering to whine about them deciding a game. Only the fans of the losing team have a problem with it
I'm all for penalty kicks during the duration of a game itself. If you'd read a single line of my (admittedly enormous) post, you'd have gotten that pretty clearly.

The game was decided by a penalty shootout; one Frenchman missed his shot, but only by inches, while each of the Italians who shot were successful, and that decided the entire game. A little bit offensive, really, watching the entire hard-fought game simplified into ten minutes of potshots.

And I resent being called a "whiner" for proposing a debate about something. I think I'm pretty justified, to be honest. Hell, I was rooting for the Italians, so it's not like my team lost.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-11-06 10:24 PM, in Thought on abortion? Link
This thread is pretty old, and I can't say much that can't be found a few pages back, but I'll take a moment to say one thing (even though I'm sure I made a similar point previously).
Originally posted by Sabishii
It should be the woman's choice because it's her body. It should be the same in the end as homosexual marriages and contraception and tattoos and piercings, if you don't like it, don't do it.
If it was as simple as you seem to think it is, then I would not be arguing abortion in the first place. I'm all for sovereignty over one's own body. I don't like the idea of tatoos or many piercings, but I'll not stop anyone else from doing it to themselves; likewise, I'm not homosexual, but I don't have much of an argument against such people getting married because it doesn't exactly damage me.

If a baby were a mass of nonhumanity, I couldn't say a word to you when you go in to get it removed. But, as the fetus is a human being, it's no longer just "your body" that's being affected by the procedure. It's not "the woman's choice because it's her body," as you remarked, because it's not her body. The child resides within her body, but is not part of it.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-11-06 10:31 PM, in Soccer Link
Originally posted by Kasdarack
I didn't mean to imply that you were a whiner. I apologize that that's how I came across. I just get upset when people bicker about situations in games because most of them knew the rules and how the game worked before deciding to watch.

I did read part of your post... and then scrolled through the thread and my OMGhuge replynow instinct kicked it.
Ok, my mistake .

Originally posted by Kasdarack
But... a shootout requires skill too. It's not as much of a team effort per shot, but it is a team effort. Your players are tested in a critical moment. One on one versus the goalie. Each player who gets a kick contributes to the success/fail ratio of the team. The teams get to that point by playing a good, evenly matched game so it comes down to the wire. I fail to see how a shootout is not representative of the skills of the players as individuals and the strength of a team.
If a shootout weren't so random, I'd think it were a wonderful way to end a game that might otherwise continue indefinitely. Like I mentioned before, I never played pro - not hardly - but even an amateur goalie can attest that a penalty kick is nothing more than a roll of a die. (A die that is fixed so that the shooter wins more often than not, but that's irrelevant.) You'll be hard pressed, as a goalie, to really read a shooter, and it's almost always an issue of just guessing. As I see it, that's not a good way to ultimately decide an enormously high-stakes game.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-12-06 03:15 AM, in Thought on abortion? Link
Originally posted by Sabishii
What I think, however, is that it should remain the woman's choice until the fetus could survive outside the womb.
So even after a number of months, when the child is most certainly human, with features that are most certainly human, its life should be at the whim of the mother? Though I would say a fetus is human from conception, even a pro-choicer would recognize the developing child as a human person long before it is able to survive on its own outside of the womb. If things worked as you describe, it would be legal to murder a developing baby long after current laws allow.

Originally posted by Sabishii
That's awesome, but until a hospital can create an artifical womb or some sort of system in which it could safely and healthily develop a fetus without need of the mother's body, it should completely be the mother's choice as to whether or not she should suffer the pains of pregnancy, labor and then either raising or letting go of the child.
It is completely her choice. She can't make the choice to have sex but decide not to risk becoming pregnant; the two are irrevocably linked.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-12-06 04:49 AM, in Soccer Link
Originally posted by Kasdarack
I'm a hockey fan, and the shooter almost never scores in a shootout, so my feelings there are exactly the opposite of what you just said.
But, then again, a professional hockey goalie will have a .9 save rate or higher, while a soccer goalie will have nothing near that. A soccer game and hockey game that have comparable scores will often see vastly different save counts - the soccer keepers might see between three and five saves each, while the hockey keepers will each have 30+. They're just different games, and the two positions cannot be directly compared.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-13-06 02:15 PM, in Soccer Link
Originally posted by Salmon
As a long-playing goal keeper (ever since I was a little child I've been playing goal keeper, I still do today, in an amateure-league, of course) I can say that there is nothing quite as wonderful as having a penalty kick taken against you, and I cannot see where Silvershield is coming from.

Penalty Kicks are a lot about mentality, and as the goal keeper, you can not be anything but thrilled to have a penalty kick taken against you. It's a situation in which you cannot lose, only win. If they score, no one's gonna blame ya', it was a penalty kick. If you save, you're the grand, big hero. Also, knowing that the situation is the complete opposite for the penalty taker, you have the upper hand mentally.
Maybe you and I have different mindsets entering into a situation like that, but I would always kick myself when I was scored on, whether it was directly through my own fault or I was hung out to dry by my defenders. Even a penalty kick that results from a foul that is not your own has to be "your" fault - the ball ends up in the back of the net, and it's your job to keep it out of there. Logical rationale aside .

Originally posted by Salmon
Anyway, I don't think penalty kicks are as random as some would have you believe. Did you know that in the history of the World Cup, Germany has only missed one single time in a penalty kick shootout (Stielike against France in 1982, a shootout they still won). That's 17 times scored out of 18 attempts. Argentina had never lost a penalty kick shootout before meeting Germany (a shootout where one of the teams would have to get their first loss). On the other end of the scale, you got Italy, who won their first World Cup shootout against France in some match a couple of days ago, and England, notoriously known for messing up shootouts. Is it random, or is there a certain skill included, when you see the same teams winning and the same teams losing over and over?
From a goalkeeper's perspective, it is certainly random. I can't help if Germany and Argentina have rock-solid concentration but England tends to choke - all I can do is guess left or right. The other end of the ball is completely a game of nerves, whether the shooter has the presence of mind to steady himself for a situation that should be incredibly easy for him.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 07-14-06 03:22 AM, in Soccer Link
If stopping a penalty kick is something a keeper is never "expected" to do - a statement which indicates that it is such a difficult, or even utterly random, task - then how is such a spot kick suitable to determine the World Cup champion? You would think a moment of such importance should not fall on pure chance, but on a contest that rests entirely on skill or only minimally on randomness, if at all.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 08-02-06 02:18 AM, in If there is a hell,some good people go there Link
I love how Arwon essentially acts as if he's got it all figured out, standing triumphant above we lowly believers who trudge blindly and stupidly through life.

I don't understand how you can make a blanket statement of that sort, when you're certainly aware - being the knowledgable and well-read person you've shown yourself to be in the past - that only a specific set of Christian sects would declare any non-believer to be Hellbound. Ask the typical fire-and-brimstone Protestant about the ultimate destination for any Jew, and he'd answer as you would expect; however, that's not to say that any other Christian would say the same thing.

Your point is true enough, but you need to be careful to limit it solely to those specific sects that allow Jesus as the only path to Salvation. There's no need to be so hamfisted and insult everyone else in the process.

Edit to correct an incorrect homophone.

(edited by Silvershield on 08-02-06 02:06 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 08-02-06 03:13 AM, in If there is a hell,some good people go there Link
Originally posted by drjayphd
And I've looked at the original question from the other side: the types that would say that good people who don't accept Jesus are going to hell tend to be the same types who'd say that all that's required to get into heaven is to accept him.
A good point, one that I wish I'd mentioned myself.

I've always had a rational objection to the claim that the only requirement for entrance into Heaven is a belief in Jesus: if a person believes in Jesus - and I mean earnestly believes - would he not seek to follow His teachings? After all, how true a believer can a person be if he refuses to act as his ultimate Lord demands of him? So, to simply believe in Jesus is not enough, because without good deeds accompanying that faith, there really is no belief in the first place.

(Convoluted maybe, but it makes sense in my head. Heh heh.)

Originally posted by drjayphd
But hey, they'd already think I was going to hell anyways because I was raised Roman Catholic, yes?
The age-old Protestant-Catholic battle .
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 08-02-06 03:21 AM, in AcmlmBoard Favorite Game Finals Link
Originally posted by witeasprinwow
Originally posted by ||bass
Deus Ex, which I've never even heard of until now, almost made the final running.


It's more of a cult classic. Half-Life is to Final Fantasy as Deus Ex is to Phantasy Star or Star Ocean or something.
Heh, Deus Ex is hardly a cult classic. And neither is Half-Life. It's just that nobody here really plays PC games, it seems .

In any case, my vote is Ocarina of Time. My favorite console game ever, bar none. But I lean more to the PC myself, so it probably isn't my favorite game (as opposed to console game).
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 08-02-06 03:22 AM, in If there is a hell,some good people go there Link
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Brilliant.... if I start my own Christian denomination, I can determine who goes to hell and who is saved .
...no, but you can opt to interpret Scripture in whatever way suits you, I suppose. Within reason, of course.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 08-02-06 03:31 AM, in If there is a hell,some good people go there Link
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Hypothetical situation time just for fun: You've got a person who is introduced to the Gospels and Jesus' teachings. He/she is totally certain Jesus is their lord and savior but does no good deeds for the rest of the day. The very next day the person is struck by a truck and put into a terminal coma. This person cannot perform any conscious acts, or even interact with other humans, but they are still alive. When this person dies what is the status of their soul?
I dunno, ask some silly Protestant and see what he says. The answer for me, though, or for any intelligent Christian, would rest on whether the person is "good" or not.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
There are people who think you will go to hell if you can't "speak in tongues." ... yeah.
Maybe their interpretation of Scripture isn't exactly "within reason." There are legitimate readings of a text, and there are illegitimate readings. Simple enough.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.224 seconds; used 476.37 kB (max 615.15 kB)