Comment deleted by Site Moderator
JPB, that is the "it's not me its, you" situation I would reflecting on.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
He was elite in his field. The pertinent point being the term "field", which can be a hyperspecialised domain area.
=============
I dont blame you for not reading through the whole discussion, and all the points ive made. The easiest thing for me to do in relation to that point, is to copy a couple of the comments which are relevant to this point :
“
well, to me the point of the olympics, is to find the fastest human, the strongest human etc.
that is the interest in it. it is a fascination with pushing the limits of human ability.
when you go to paralympics though, it's not the same atall so far as i can see it.
theoretically, it becomes about finding the fastest person out of those with such and such an injury. well to me, this has the following problems :
- it is being selective and discriminatory on who can enter.
- in some instances it is not testing the person but the technology at their disposal
- it is not even finding the best athletes out of those who are eligble to enter the competition. instead it's finding the person who can manage their disability in the best way.
to take the wheelchair events for example, it is arguable that that isnt a competition to find the best sportsman in the world (of that disciple), it's a competition to find the best person at using a wheelchair, out of the pool of people who have the misfortune of being confined to a wheelchair.”
“aside from that though, there is a difference between finding the fastest bike rider in the world, and the fastest bike rider out of people with one arm (for example).
these guys…are "just" the fastest etc people out of the pool of people with the same disability as themselves. there's no indication that without their disability, these guys would be taking part in any high level of competitive sport at all.”
“Let's say youve got the 8 fastest athletes in the world lining up for the final of the 100m race.
something happens which means that for some reason 4 of them suffer the same disability.
in that situation, yeah fine, let's have one race for the disabled guys and one race for the other guys - maybe anyway.
but what im saying is that the likelyhood is that the vast majority of the guys taking part in the paralympics wouldnt have been anywhere near that start line is it wasnt for their disability. yes, they are likely to be slower than they would have been if they werent disabled. but doesnt mean that if they werent disabled, they would have been as quick as usian bolt.”
These still seem like reasonable points to me.
Tbh, the view which ive expressed isnt important enough to merit all this discussion, but i still think the points are valid (and certainly not discriminatory).
self-obsessed, - possibly
narcissistic - possibly
insular - possibly
arrogant - in some ways
and stubborn - in some way
make a mockery of the tag - inaccurate.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
So you will continue to go over and over and over the same points (your opinion...of which you are entitled to) without conceding anything (again, that is your prerogative) or taking anything on board from the opposite side (the majority).
=================
I am prepared to take things on board galv, but so far ive just been called names. what are the actual points that have been made which i should have taken on board ?
so far as i can recall, the only thing weve really discussed is whether there are more people with one arm than there are people with no disabilities. i cant believe anyone actually disputed this and asked for statstical evidence tbh.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
anyway, youre obviously getting pisssed off with it, which isnt my intention, so let's call it "'a draw' if you really want. waste of time anyway.
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/144972
maybe this is the thread for you JPB, the posters on here have similar views no?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
JPB....You've still not made the point that I haven't personally done any of the things you accuse in your first paragraph there..
It's only you and I left, so why mention things others did to you?
================
i said that i had actually been the victim (of name calling) in the discussion yesterday.
you mocked that claim.
i provided evidence to substantiate it.
it's the same as when you mocked my comment about dwarfs but then couldnt actually say what was wrong with the comment.
you did make unfounded accusations against me last night btw, which i didnt even include in the list above.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
it isnt actually a draw of course, im just being nice to you
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
well who is "the victim" then ? and why ?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
you are possibly the most ineffectual debater i have ever encountered.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
what is this ireelevant tangent then ?
you mentioned that yesterday and i didnt understand it.
what do you consider to be the actual focus of this discussion, and (specifically) how do you consider that i have strayed from that ?
Sign in if you want to comment
The chatting with TBOK and Friends Thread
Page 17 of 213
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
JPB, that is the "it's not me its, you" situation I would reflecting on.
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
He was elite in his field. The pertinent point being the term "field", which can be a hyperspecialised domain area.
=============
I dont blame you for not reading through the whole discussion, and all the points ive made. The easiest thing for me to do in relation to that point, is to copy a couple of the comments which are relevant to this point :
“
well, to me the point of the olympics, is to find the fastest human, the strongest human etc.
that is the interest in it. it is a fascination with pushing the limits of human ability.
when you go to paralympics though, it's not the same atall so far as i can see it.
theoretically, it becomes about finding the fastest person out of those with such and such an injury. well to me, this has the following problems :
- it is being selective and discriminatory on who can enter.
- in some instances it is not testing the person but the technology at their disposal
- it is not even finding the best athletes out of those who are eligble to enter the competition. instead it's finding the person who can manage their disability in the best way.
to take the wheelchair events for example, it is arguable that that isnt a competition to find the best sportsman in the world (of that disciple), it's a competition to find the best person at using a wheelchair, out of the pool of people who have the misfortune of being confined to a wheelchair.”
“aside from that though, there is a difference between finding the fastest bike rider in the world, and the fastest bike rider out of people with one arm (for example).
these guys…are "just" the fastest etc people out of the pool of people with the same disability as themselves. there's no indication that without their disability, these guys would be taking part in any high level of competitive sport at all.”
“Let's say youve got the 8 fastest athletes in the world lining up for the final of the 100m race.
something happens which means that for some reason 4 of them suffer the same disability.
in that situation, yeah fine, let's have one race for the disabled guys and one race for the other guys - maybe anyway.
but what im saying is that the likelyhood is that the vast majority of the guys taking part in the paralympics wouldnt have been anywhere near that start line is it wasnt for their disability. yes, they are likely to be slower than they would have been if they werent disabled. but doesnt mean that if they werent disabled, they would have been as quick as usian bolt.”
These still seem like reasonable points to me.
Tbh, the view which ive expressed isnt important enough to merit all this discussion, but i still think the points are valid (and certainly not discriminatory).
posted on 30/8/12
self-obsessed, - possibly
narcissistic - possibly
insular - possibly
arrogant - in some ways
and stubborn - in some way
make a mockery of the tag - inaccurate.
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
So you will continue to go over and over and over the same points (your opinion...of which you are entitled to) without conceding anything (again, that is your prerogative) or taking anything on board from the opposite side (the majority).
=================
I am prepared to take things on board galv, but so far ive just been called names. what are the actual points that have been made which i should have taken on board ?
so far as i can recall, the only thing weve really discussed is whether there are more people with one arm than there are people with no disabilities. i cant believe anyone actually disputed this and asked for statstical evidence tbh.
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
anyway, youre obviously getting pisssed off with it, which isnt my intention, so let's call it "'a draw' if you really want. waste of time anyway.
posted on 30/8/12
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/144972
maybe this is the thread for you JPB, the posters on here have similar views no?
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
JPB....You've still not made the point that I haven't personally done any of the things you accuse in your first paragraph there..
It's only you and I left, so why mention things others did to you?
================
i said that i had actually been the victim (of name calling) in the discussion yesterday.
you mocked that claim.
i provided evidence to substantiate it.
it's the same as when you mocked my comment about dwarfs but then couldnt actually say what was wrong with the comment.
you did make unfounded accusations against me last night btw, which i didnt even include in the list above.
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
it isnt actually a draw of course, im just being nice to you
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
well who is "the victim" then ? and why ?
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
you are possibly the most ineffectual debater i have ever encountered.
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
JPB is a legend
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/8/12
what is this ireelevant tangent then ?
you mentioned that yesterday and i didnt understand it.
what do you consider to be the actual focus of this discussion, and (specifically) how do you consider that i have strayed from that ?
Page 17 of 213
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22