Jump to content

formermav43

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by formermav43

  1. 50 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    Man that NYT article is excellent thank you for sharing the gift link! The last few paragraphs are really the thesis of the whole piece IMO

    Finally, we can’t forget the intense emotion of Christian nationalism. Most believers don’t follow ideological and theological arguments particularly closely. In the words of the historian Thomas Kidd, “Actual Christian nationalism is more a visceral reaction than a rationally chosen stance.” It is tied, in other words, to a visceral sense that the fate of the church is closely tied to the outcome of any given political race.

    That fervor can make believers gullible and potentially even dangerous. Its good-versus-evil dynamic can make Christians believe that their political opponents are capable of anything, including stealing an election. It artificially raises the stakes of elections to the point where a loss becomes an unthinkable catastrophe, with the fates of both church and state hanging in the balance. As we saw on Jan. 6, 2021, this belief invites violent action.

    Committed Christian nationalists represent only 10 percent of the population, according to a 2023 PRRI/Brookings Christian Nationalism Survey. But even members of a minority that small can gain outsize power when they fold themselves into the larger Christian electorate, casting themselves as “just like you.” That’s why we cannot conflate Christian activism with Christian nationalism. One can welcome Christian participation in the public square while resisting domination, from any faith or creed.

    FYI, I posted the Kidd article they are quoting there early in the thread too.

  2. 6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    Who gets to define “good” vs. “bad”’ outcomes? The authority that oversees 1 billion Chinese people disagrees with your definition of a good outcome. 

    I also had trouble processing those two posts back to back.

    • Like 1
  3. 1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

    Others covered it just fine but that's not antagonistic. You're just being sensitive. If one believes that Jesus Christ's claim to be the Son of God (or for some people his very existence) is fraudulent then by description is straightforward. The vast majority of the world believes Christianity is fraudulent.  

    [Thread derail incoming:] We laugh flat-earthers, anti-vaxers, and the like right off this board. That view has precisely the same degree of credibility in mainstream scholarship. It’s amazing that otherwise serious posters can claim that and then just have it accepted at face value as legitimate, as here.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
    • Rage+1 1
  4. If you can stand a little theological discussion, here’s a pretty good article critical of the concept from the evangelical historian Thomas Kidd. And if you don’t want to read it, his short definition is similar to what 956 said above: “an understanding of American identity and significance held by Christians wherein the nation is a central actor in the world-historical purposes of the Christian God.“


    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/christian-nationalism-patriotism/?amp

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  5. 1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

    I disagree.....it's popular because of the top 20ish or so teams that carry the remaining 90%

    It probably is for the vast majority of fans.

    I do think some of the moves discussed on this page will alienate some longterm fans who prefer college to the NFL (raises hand).

  6. My wife and I have struggled with “unexplained infertility” for several years. Medically, all the tests say we are both perfectly normal. But she has had multiple miscarriages and difficulty getting pregnant in between. After IUI was unsuccessful, the next step proposed was IVF.

    We talked about it and decided not to because of ethical discomfort over 1) potentially needing to terminate if there were multiples and 2) especially the question of what to do with leftover embryos-all of the options (indefinite storage, destruction, adoption) made us uneasy.

    I say all that to say I recognize this is very much a grey area. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions about what is right-not everyone shares our perspective and I completely understand why they don’t. And that’s precisely why the state shouldn’t be dictating this.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  7. 7 minutes ago, slorch said:

    having 2 runners OB for one of those PA's sure does sound better to me, but who cares about runs scored?

    This is why optimally you want him batting 2nd (not leadoff or even 3rd). The leadoff hitter has a runner on ahead of them less than any other spot in the lineup; conversely, 3 frequently has at-bats with no one on and 2 out-it’s actually a less important spot than 4 or even 5 in terms of likelihood of having runners on. 2 should be your best overall hitter, one with both high OBP and power.

  8. 1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

    Last point is that as top programs continue to consolidate into fewer conferences the season records we instinctively associate with good teams will have to change. When we finally and fully get into a power 2 situation and they increase conference games and get rid of crappy non-conference matchups a 9-3 record will typically mean that's a very good team.

    I’m clearly in the minority, but I’m not really interested in watching that sport.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  9. 12 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

    Jesus christ, 14? Lotta 3 loss teams in that bitch

    Yeah, 13 and 14 in last year’s rankings were 9-3 LSU and Arizona. No thanks. 

    Edit: go back a few years and you’ll find 9-4 Stanford in the final rankings of 2017 at 13. Certainly deserving of a playoff spot.

    • Haha 1
  10. Just now, Snake Diggity said:

    By the book the lineup would be:

    Altuve 

    Alvarez

    Bregman

    Tucker

    Diaz

    Abreu

    McCormick

    Pena

    Meyers

    But due to handedness matching, egos, and rest days, we’ll never see that lineup.  Espada made a comment today that could be interpreted as expecting Pena to be back in the 2 hole which would be stupid af.

     

    I’m going to be optimistic and believe for now that it’s because he’s hitting 9th all the time that he’ll always know.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 40 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

    Are we hitting Tucker behind Bregman in that order to split-up the left-handed hitters or is it optimal for Bregman to hit before Tucker without that consideration?

    It’s optimal to have your best hitters at 1, 2, and 4 by The Book. 2 should be your best overall hitter (Alvarez) and 4 should be a big power bat (Tucker>Bregman). 3 should be filled in after those guys ideally.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  12. 32 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

    A 30 year debt of 100k when you make 75k in a year shows me you’re bad at math. Credit card debt can always be moved to a transfer card card. Christ sakes

     

    30 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

    You think people now, in the last two years bought 100k houses? Did you spend your day off making shitty arguments all over this board?

    Having a lively argument with yourself?

  13. On 2/3/2024 at 5:13 AM, YGIFS said:

    Not saying Santiago was a better overall player but people forget that Mayer gets a lot of “bonus points” for hitting so well as a Catcher.  When in fact he literally played half his career as a DH or 1B, where his type of production was actually sub-HOF. 

    Nobody forgets that. It’s why his WAR was so much higher before he transitioned to 1B. You can remove all his season from 2014 on and he still easily has more than Santiago.

×
×
  • Create New...