A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Gotta keep it from The Children



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old July 2nd 03, 02:54 AM
Dan Evans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children


"CBI" wrote in message
...

You still don't get it. In the game you were playing there was no

simulation
fot he full contact and line blocking that occurs in football. The fatigue
in football comes from making an all out effort pushing on a barely

movable
object for short bursts of time (for the linemen) or from crashing

through
a bunch of guys hitting you for 5 yards at a time (for backs).


So you're saying that that didn't happen? Here's what happened.

The challenge was made (by whom to whom, I don't recall)
The US team got a book on rugby, and had one of our guys go up there to
train them
We got a book on American Football, and one of thier guys came to us.
We played a match of American Football, to the rules/instruction we had
received (we even had the padding/helmet etc)
We played a match of Rugby, to the rules/instructions they had received
(with *no* padding/helmet etc, which alarmed some of them).

If you have so little faith in the quality of Amateur American Football, or
if indeed the quality of amateur American Football is that bad, tough.
Equally matched teams, in terms of level the respective game was played at,
reulted in us winning. I can't see why similar result shouldn't happen with
teams at a higher standard.

Perhaps Shelly should tell us why the question was asked if the answer from
my personal experience "couldn't have happened because of X Y and Z"?

Amateur level against amateur level - seems a fair match to me.

The level of athletes isn't the issue.


Isn't to me either, but it seemed to be an issue with whoever it is that I
followed up to.

Playing rugby and then playing a sport more like rugby than football and
comparing the results is not.


Don't blame that American Football is nearly-but-not-the-same-as Rugby.

Chances are you broke some of the rules.


I'm assuming that the US version of a PTI is as knowledgable of the rules of
American Football (Baseball, etc) as a British PTI is of the rules of Rubgy
(Association Football, Cricket, Hockey etc)

Dan


  #82  
Old July 2nd 03, 04:34 PM
abacus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gotta keep it from The Children

"silvasurfa" wrote in message . ..
"abacus" wrote in message
om...


Silvasurfa's saying that the act of the smoking is so dispictable that
the justification (means) for banning it in a public park (end) is
fine with her. She considers the means appropriate for the end. Toto
is saying that even though she might dislike smoking, the
justification used is not sufficient to ban it in a public park and
fears that the justification of setting a bad example for children, if
considered a legimate reason for banning an otherwise acceptable act,
could be used quite extensively for many different things and that
could be detrimental to the freedom of individuals in our society. If
I've got this right, I agree with Toto.

Any corrections?


Ok, time to restate my opinion, because people ain't getting it.


Thanks for taking the time to clarify. Sorry, I don't get it, but
I'll try to interpret your opinion again and see if I understand it
better now.

It doesn't matter *now* (and now is what we can do something about eh?)
whether the law was passed for the children, the environment, or for little
green men from the planet Mars.... the law is there, the law is now the
status quo, and if you want change you have to present a case for the future
being different, not a case for the past having played out differently. So
slopping your argument up with discussion of why the law was passed in order
to try to score points is just a cheap and pointless distraction (hence I
guess the crosspost from alt.peeves rather than
alt.i-can-do-something-about-this) ... and if you are actually trying to get
change happening it will detract from your attempts. There isn't a law on
the books that didn't involve someone at some stage in its creation
presenting a specious argument, because that's pretty much how all our laws
are made in democracies.


I'm afraid this clarification has only made me more confused. If you
really want to change something, to make the future different from the
past, it's crucial to understand the *why*.

If you don't care at all about the past, only the result, then the
whole *ends justifying the means* argument is moot. Whatever has
happened in the past is past, no point in discussing whether or not
the means justified the end, the only question is where do we go from
here. Kinda like the whole WMD justification for the war in Iraq.
What difference does it make whether or not they really existed, or
whether or not the intelligence saying they did was reliable. it
sounds to me, if we applied your logic to that situation, like you're
saying: Okay, they lied to us about WMD. So what? Leaders have been
lying about why they wanted to go to war for as long as there has been
war. Let's move on and figure out what we're going to do next"? Or
am I still clueless about your opinion?

And as for my opinion about smokers and smoking... banning smoking in public
parks doesn't nearly go far enough. I wouldn't mind smoking banned in public
places altogether. There are *plenty* of things that are banned in public
because they are repulsive and nauseating, and smoking should be one of
them.


Thanks for taking the time to help me understand where you're coming
from.
Just curious, aside from the air pollution issue which I don't
consider to be a legimate argument in an outdoor setting (if it were,
automobiles and charcoal grills could be banned), what argument can be
made against smoking in public versus breast feeding in public. Why
should one be allowed and not the other? After all, some people find
public breast feeding repulsive and nauseating.
  #83  
Old July 3rd 03, 02:37 AM
silvasurfa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gotta keep it from The Children


"abacus" wrote in message
om...
"silvasurfa" wrote in message

. ..
"abacus" wrote in message
om...

Or
am I still clueless about your opinion?


I suspect you are, but I'm getting to the stage where I can't be bothered
explaining. Remain clueless.

And as for my opinion about smokers and smoking... banning smoking in

public
parks doesn't nearly go far enough. I wouldn't mind smoking banned in

public
places altogether. There are *plenty* of things that are banned in

public
because they are repulsive and nauseating, and smoking should be one of
them.


Just curious, aside from the air pollution issue which I don't
consider to be a legimate argument in an outdoor setting (if it were,
automobiles and charcoal grills could be banned), what argument can be
made against smoking in public versus breast feeding in public. Why
should one be allowed and not the other? After all, some people find
public breast feeding repulsive and nauseating.


The health issues associated with smoking adds to people's distress at
witnessing it... it is pretty much like watching someone drop their pants
and take a ****... it doesn't matter that they are ****ting onto a nice
plastic ziploc baggy that they will be tucking away in their tote bag and
taken home to dispose of... the activity is one that taps into deep seated
feelings about what is safe and what isn't, deep seated beliefs about
hygiene. Whereas breastfeeding in public is more like public gum chewing...
could be a bit icky and not appropriate at certain times, but it isn't going
to make anyone reasonable think of either cancer or gastroenteritis.

If you wanted a parenting analogy, smoking in public is like changing a
smelly ****ty nappy in public. People don't care that the parent is going to
clean up the mess, the wind is blowing the other way etc, that's ****** and
people don't want it intruding on their day or on any of their senses, or
indeed upon their sensibilities. Likewise with cigarette smoke... the stuff
can be lethal and it is offensive in the extreme. It is equivalent to ****.
They can do it at home, they can do it in private but keep it the **** away
from other people. Even if smokers reduce the actual risk to zero for other
people, the substance itself is offensive and distressing. Like drawing a
gun in public.




  #84  
Old July 3rd 03, 03:44 AM
CBI
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children



"Dan Evans" wrote in message
...

This leaves me with two equally likely possible conclusions. One is that

the
guys you played were no more experienced football players than you were


Always possible, but from what I gather - doesn't everyone do football at
school to some degree?


Heck no. The vast majority of Americans have never worn pads or played in an
organized game. Nearly all American males have probably played touch
football (no where near the same sport) and "pick-up" games of basketball
(which resembles the organized game fairly closely in basic skills). Playing
on organized baseball teams is very popular for school aged kids. However,
most communities do not have organized football teams below the high school
level (although regional "pee wee" leagues are common) and only a relatively
low fraction of the students play on those teams.

--
CBI


  #85  
Old July 3rd 03, 01:11 PM
Hillary Israeli
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children

In ,
Dan Evans wrote:

*
*Always possible, but from what I gather - doesn't everyone do football at
*school to some degree?

Absolutely not. Only a select few make the teams, at least around here.
The moms in my social circle (well, I'm talking about the now-grandmoms -
the women who are my own mom's peers) pretty much actively campaigned
against allowing their sons to play football, too - certainly none of my
friends played.


--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large
  #86  
Old July 3rd 03, 01:37 PM
Dan Evans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children


"CBI" wrote in message
...

Heck no. The vast majority of Americans have never worn pads or played in

an
organized game.


I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by that
sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
(Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during the
summer.

Dan


  #87  
Old July 3rd 03, 06:19 PM
Penny Gaines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children

Dan Evans wrote in :


"CBI" wrote in message
...

Heck no. The vast majority of Americans have never worn pads or played in

an
organized game.


I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by
that sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
(Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during
the summer.


I'll join you in being stunned.

The games played at schools in the UK are the same as the games played
by adults who do them for a living. The only difference is the size of the
players and the skill level.

Over here we have pub/work football teams and the like, played by groups of
friends or colleagues against other people of a similar level. Ie by
amateurs who maybe practise once a week. Does this mean that there is no
equivalent in the US?

(FWIW five-a-side football is another popular game for amateur
competitions.)

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three
  #88  
Old July 3rd 03, 06:47 PM
abacus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gotta keep it from The Children

"silvasurfa" wrote in message .. .
"abacus" wrote in message
om...
"silvasurfa" wrote in message

. ..
"abacus" wrote in message
om...

Or
am I still clueless about your opinion?


I suspect you are, but I'm getting to the stage where I can't be bothered
explaining. Remain clueless.

As you wish ma'am. If you don't feel your opinion is worth the bother
of further explaination, I wouldn't dream of contradicting you in that
regard. However, my experience is that when people grow impatient
and/or irritated at my persistent questions trying to understand their
opinions and beliefs, it's because I've come close to identifying some
irrational aspect of it they do not wish to examine any further
themselves.

And as for my opinion about smokers and smoking... banning smoking in

public
parks doesn't nearly go far enough. I wouldn't mind smoking banned in

public
places altogether. There are *plenty* of things that are banned in

public
because they are repulsive and nauseating, and smoking should be one of
them.


Just curious, aside from the air pollution issue which I don't
consider to be a legimate argument in an outdoor setting (if it were,
automobiles and charcoal grills could be banned), what argument can be
made against smoking in public versus breast feeding in public. Why
should one be allowed and not the other? After all, some people find
public breast feeding repulsive and nauseating.


The health issues associated with smoking adds to people's distress at
witnessing it... it is pretty much like watching someone drop their pants
and take a ****... it doesn't matter that they are ****ting onto a nice
plastic ziploc baggy that they will be tucking away in their tote bag and
taken home to dispose of... the activity is one that taps into deep seated
feelings about what is safe and what isn't, deep seated beliefs about
hygiene.



Ma'am, while your feelings regarding the matter may indeed be
deep-seated, they are hardly universal in the same way that feelings
about defecating in public are.

Whereas breastfeeding in public is more like public gum chewing...
could be a bit icky and not appropriate at certain times, but it isn't going
to make anyone reasonable think of either cancer or gastroenteritis.


Well, smoking doesn't bring cancer or gastroenteritis to mind for me.
Nor do I find breast-feeding icky or inappropriate. However, I can't
abide gum-chewing and don't permit it in my house. (An affectation my
children find quite irritating). My point is that different people
have different ideas about what is nauseating and disgusting. Now, I
must admit, that glad as I would be to see the habit of chewing gum
banished from our society, I can't imagine supporting laws against the
public display of that disgusting habit.

If you wanted a parenting analogy, smoking in public is like changing a
smelly ****ty nappy in public. People don't care that the parent is going to
clean up the mess, the wind is blowing the other way etc, that's ****** and
people don't want it intruding on their day or on any of their senses, or
indeed upon their sensibilities. Likewise with cigarette smoke... the stuff
can be lethal and it is offensive in the extreme. It is equivalent to ****.
They can do it at home, they can do it in private but keep it the **** away
from other people. Even if smokers reduce the actual risk to zero for other
people, the substance itself is offensive and distressing. Like drawing a
gun in public.



Thanks for giving your opinion. I disagree with the analogy, but I
think you have successfully communicated your opinion at this time.
One further question if you will permit it: Why on earth do you find
smoking so disturbing as to be the equivalent of pooping or pulling a
gun in public?

Clearly, those analogies seem appropriate to you, though I think most
people in our society would consider smoking to be a much lower order
of offense. Your reasons seem legimate for disliking the habit, but
don't seem reasonable to justify the intensity of your feelings
regarding the activity.
  #89  
Old July 3rd 03, 07:13 PM
Hillary Israeli
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children

In ,
Dan Evans wrote:

*
*"CBI" wrote in message
...
*
* Heck no. The vast majority of Americans have never worn pads or played in
*an
* organized game.
*
*I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
*played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by that
*sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
*(Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
*basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during the
*summer.

An active lot, aren't you?

Football is a high-injury sport! Honestly, the moms I know don't let their
kids play and there is a LOT of competition to get onto the team among
those whose moms DO let them play - there are way fewer spots than kids!
Kids often play touch football, but that's a different sort of thing.
Also, in gym class, kids often play soccer, basketball, volleyball,
sometimes tennis if the school has courts -- but no, not football, not in
my experience!

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large
  #90  
Old July 3rd 03, 08:01 PM
Dan Evans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT (wildly): photo tix and dropping the hammer was Gotta keep it from The Children


"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In ,
Dan Evans wrote:


*I'm stunned. In the UK, or at least in our area when I was at school, we
*played the "national" sports, and when we played a sport, we played by

that
*sport governing bodies rules. Generally Rugby (winter term), Football
*(Spring term) and Cricket (Summer term), though occasionally baseball,
*basketball and tennis - and track and field got a look in as well during

the
*summer.

An active lot, aren't you?


Not really. There was (and I suppose there still is) 2 hours a week minimum
devoted to PE (Phyical Education) and it was (and I think it still is) a
compulsory subject, along with Maths, English Language and Religeous
Education - meaning that if those were the only 4 subjecta school taught,
then that was fine.

When you think about it, 2 hours a week isn't much

Football is a high-injury sport!


Rugby has its moments as well. A kid I was at school with broke his neck
(though it has to be said that is very rare for that to happen), and there
were several broken arms and legs a year, plus missing teeth, broken
noses/fingers/ribs etc

Dan


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.