Recent Comments
I personally feel like he gets defensive because Americans are NOT good at not being the best at the sport, especially new fans, and he doesn't know how to handle that.
It's like when people got upset with him for him saying we weren't going to win the last World Cup, before the tournament started. He was speaking the truth, but Americans don't like to accept that kind of statement when it comes to sports. I think it's a culture discrepancy. How can we be surprised that he now talks the way he does, when we collectively gave him hell for speaking realistically?
Personally, I see a lot of improvements from the Bradley era already, and that's with us hanging a lot of responsibility on a much younger generation of player. I don't think he's the best international manager out there (note that the Mourinho's of the world tend to stay in the club scene where they have more total control...) but I don't think he's nearly as bad as people want to believe.
You've essentially reduced your argument to
This has become unproductive and tedious.
🦀🦀SHEEEEEEEEIT🦀🦀
|
10 years 1 month
# | The arms race in College Football and what it could mean for the ACC yes, please report back on Google Fiber
See, I think the way we lost to Colombia is actually more damning to Jurgen's abilities as a coach - yes, it's clear that Colombia is more talented. But a well-coached team with lesser talent & a defined, practiced system can do great things. Costa Rica's 2014 World Cup run is a good example of that actually.
Look at this quote from a recent Q&A Klinsmann did with the Wall Street Journal:
WSJ: Younger players say you give little in the way of instruction, that you say things like "let your personality show," or "make a statement." Why do you speak in such generalities?
Klinsmann: When you go very specific, where do you start? Do you start with five bullet points? Or with 20? For every position, every system you want to play, every style you're going to play? We do that here and there specifically before the games, but at the end of the day, they need to drive their own bullet points. They need to understand what makes me stronger, what makes me better.
Can you imagine a manager like Mourinho saying something like that? Not in a million years.
I think a lot of what happened yesterday against Costa Rica comes down to a couple things: We were more talented across the board, and Jurgen actually started the same 11 guys in the same spots for the first time in forever. Jurgen tinkering with tactics & formations endlessly during friendlies might be his way of seeing where players fit on the field, and that's fine. But you can't turn around and expect your team to play as a cohesive unit while only having played said formation a couple times in the lead-up to strong competition like Colombia.
I don't think Jurgen is actively holding back US Soccer, but I also don't believe we've lived up to any of the promises he made when he got the job. To me, Jurgen's biggest flaw is that he's incapable of taking blame for anything, and the buck always gets passed on to someone else. He doesn't do himself any favors by speaking condescendingly, and overall, I think he's created a more toxic atmosphere around the national team than existed before. Basically, he comes off as a jerk and I'm tired of mediocre results for a guy who talks such a big game.
|
10 years 1 month
# | Hokies Chasing 2017 ATH Henri Murphy, Aiming to Sign "One of the Fastest Kids in the Country" I was quite confused by that comment. Thanks for clarifying.
Colombia doesn't have the top spot locked up, they're only guaranteed to advance (if we win by 2 and Colombia loses we would take top spot on goal difference). even still, we probably just have to draw vs Paraguay to get through since we have 3 out of the likely 4 points needed
Didn't see a better place to put this, but SI.com's Zac Ellis thinks Fuente is one of a handful of first-year coaches who are in a position to win immediately:
6. Justin Fuente, Virginia Tech
It's a new era in Blacksburg, where Fuente arrives from Memphis to replace legendary coach Frank Beamer. Fuente brings with him a little bit of old and new. He and offensive coordinator Brad Cornelsen will install a spread offense, but Fuente opted to retain longtime coordinator Bud Foster on defense. That recipe should combine well with 14 returning starters if the Hokies can navigate a schedule that includes a nonconference meeting with Tennessee and road trips to North Carolina and Notre Dame. But an eight- or nine-win season isn't out of the question for Fuente, who knows how to rebuild a program.
Projected 2016 record: 8-4
I get your thought process with reguards to recruiting. Until cable is officially dead there will always be games on cable somewhere, including ACC sports. I would also argue that most recruits probably do not have the deluxe sports cable package, and more prown to having internet and or a data plan on their phones.
The bigger issue is that more and more people are cutting the cord and using Rokus and other streaming devices to watch games on their TVs and their PHONEs. most children these days have great phones and access to wifi everywhere giving them the opportunity to watch anything anywhere. Since cable viewership is going down you have to offer a streaming option.
There is a reason the NFL is letting Twitter broadcast 10 Thursday night games this year and why yahoo broadcast the London game last year. The trend in the market is that eventually the Internet will kill the cable model. In a few years the highest bidder for NFL broadcasting rights might not be CBS, Fox, or NBC. It more then likely will be Amazon or Google. So the sooner you start your own streaming abilities the better you will get at it and beat your competition.
Here is an article about it.
I think yesterday is evidence that our system simply falls apart when we're up against superior talent, but otherwise he does in fact have a plan.
Columbia was always going to be a tall task, but we have the horses to beat teams like Costa Rica. So all in all, I'm not giving up on Jurgen yet.
Morals are rigid and unchanging. They are inherent.
Who is responsible for setting the moral compass? What actually defines what is right and what is wrong? Morality has to come from somewhere, right?
I think that what many people consider to be moral actually goes against our biological make-up. For instance, instinctively, all animals (including homo sapiens) inherently adhere to "survival of the fittest". However, it is widely considered morally wrong for one human being to kill another human being (especially over something as trivial as food). So instinctively, biologically, we are programmed to fight (perhaps to the death, if necessary) for basic needs (food, water, etc.). So where do these morals, which tell us it's wrong to kill someone for a hamburger, actually come from? How can you say they are rigid, unchanging, and inherent, when they're actually often times contradictory to the biological instincts of all living creatures?
Natural Law Theory is also a study in philosophy. And though we interpret it differently, we both agree with it. However, because it is a philosophy it also is not an absolute. Just because we may agree and believe in it does not mean everyone, everywhere does as well.
This is your same problem with how you define morals and their rigidness. You are prescribing your beliefs onto everyone. But it doesn't work that way. Other people believe differently than you. Other people have different interpretations of philosophy than you. Therefore their morals may be, and are, different than yours.
If you think only religious zealots believe gay marriage is immoral then you are flatly wrong. Many non-religious people feel this way as well. Again, you say they are incorrect. That their understanding of morals is wrong. But, again, that is only YOU saying that. There is no edict that established what you say to be universal.
"Religious zealots who proclaim their truth to be "morality" are simply abusing vocabulary to further an agenda"
just as you are proclaiming that your definition of morals is the only truth to be known.
They are inherent. They exist regardless of whether people or philosophy do. Philosophy is how you discover and discuss them, but it is not what creates them.
You are confusing the distinction between "morality" and "morals". Morality is inherent. Morality exists innately. Morals are created, and are defined by man.
look at the definitions of these terms:
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior
Morals:
1) a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.or
2) a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
Morality is innate. Morals are defined and learned. Thus morals are not rigid and have factually changed throughout time.
By our philosophies differ, I did not mean, and would not want you to assume, that I'm conceding that point regarding relativism. The philosophy I adhere to (natural law theory), is a means interpreting and deducing morals, yes. But a philosophical standpoint is not where morals come from. Morals are rigid and unchanging. They are inherent. They exist regardless of whether people or philosophy do. Philosophy is how you discover and discuss them, but it is not what creates them. So though interpretation may differ, the moral remains the same. There are no "my morals or your morals." There are morals, and then there is my understanding and your understanding, and our applications thereof, but the moral remains absolute regardless of individual thought. This of course is grounded in the rational thought definition of natural law theory provided by Hobbes and Locke. It's using this definition of morality that I reach the conclusion that gay marriage is amoral. The examples you cite use the term "morality" incorrectly, just as you do. Though religious beliefs may help explain and examine moral issues, religious tenets should not be conflated with morality. Morals exist outside religion, and apply independently of religion. Religious zealots who proclaim their truth to be "morality" are simply abusing vocabulary to further an agenda. People misusing words doesn't prove relativism, it just proves that people can be wrong.
🦃 LEG KING 🦃
|
10 years 1 month
# | OT: Jeremy Clarkson fired by the BBC, Richard Hammond and James May will likely step away from Top Gear as well Oh boy just caught the second episode... not good
My wife did have an interesting observation at the end, though, as we were watching the after show. Evans was much, MUCH more laid back and natural in that setting, and both his interview there and the pre taped segment from the McLaren bit were actually good. Give him time to calm down into the role and the show might have potential. Unfortunately we might have to wait a season or two before that happens, so we'll have to deal with the shouty loud ego man for a while longer.
the fundamental problem with the moral relativism you espouse is that it presupposes that societies cannot behave immorally, since morality apparently depends entirely on popular will (as evidenced by that perplexing paragraph on slavery). This would seem to make the very concept of morality moot, to the point that a reasonable person would find it nonsensical.
That is not moral relativism. It doesn't say that no one can be immoral. Your Nazi example is precisely something that is viewed as a moral disagreement about morality, and consequently viewed as immoral. Relativism simply states that morals must be defined by something. There is no magic ether that sets morals universally. That is nonsensical.
If you think gay marriage is not a question of morality then great. But that is only your perspective, and not universal to everyone. There is no way you can prove that your perspective holds true to everyone universally. There are plenty of people that believe and advocate daily that gay marriage is immoral, not amoral, but immoral. See: Baptist Church, Westboro for an extreme case. Again, your personal perspective may believe it is not an issue with morality, and that's great, but your beliefs on morality are not universal to everyone else.
Your last sentence is key: "Our philosophies differ"
This is precisely the point. It is a philosophy, not an absolute. Everyone's moral interpretation is different, not universal.
Your morals are not my morals. And there is no universal edict on what is or is not moral that applies absolutely. It's that simple.
America! Looks like we only need a draw in the final game to advance if columbia keeps this up
I agree with Hokierick. Its not all about football. The ACC is the best basketball conference and tend to be upper tier in every Olympic sport.
I personally would much prefer a cable network with a stream option. I usually watch whatever ACC game is on instead of some SEC game I don't care about, and cracking out the laptop to do so isn't appealing.
Also, I think a subscription based online platform hurts from a recruiting prospective. Are recruits really going to subscribe and crack out the iPad to watch the VT game every weekend? Doubt it.
ESPN is still the dominant sports network, so if that's the case, I want them to be talking about the ACC. If we sign a deal with them, we'll have them hyping us like they hype the SEC now.
I've got the same philosophy as you, and I've got my tickets squared away, - BBBB on the 40 /East/Side
Surprised how many teeth he still has.
Yeah that's fair. Didn't mean to be super critical. I'd read the article on another site where it was linked to push a tired narrative. So I was irked a little when I saw it here.
Well...that was an ass-whompin.
Surprisingly white teeth for a Vols fan...
|
10 years 1 month
# | Hokies Chasing 2017 ATH Henri Murphy, Aiming to Sign "One of the Fastest Kids in the Country" You say potato, I say......
the hype is real
I think it's been stated before in another thread but it needs restating, that the ACC network, be it online or otherwise, could be more successful than either of those two other conference networks due to the number of schools playing high quality numerous sports. The SEC has football, baseball, but basketball is lacking. The Big10 has football and basketball but no baseball to speak of. The ACC can have all 3 especially if VT and Miami or UNC can rise up to match FSU and Clemson. Not to mention all the Olympic sports, and soccer, lacrosse, etc all high quality content to be shown year round. It doesn't generate the same buzz as football and basketball but it gives genuine new fresh year round content not reruns of Alabama-Ga in April or whatever is on the SEC network.
Your rhetorical questions incorrectly presuppose that morals must come from somewhere. Must be given by some entity. No thing or person determines right and wrong. That's what I've argued the whole time. Right and wrong exist regardless of whether people exist. Morality doesn't 'come from' anywhere, because it already is everywhere.
As to your biology example, I'd say it's reductive. There is killing which is morally justifiable (for self-preservation, generally as a last resort). And again, they can be rigid, unchanging, and inherent, because they exist regardless of whether or not people do, so the biology point (though it can be argued further, to a point where it squares with morality) is moot.