stormybadger6 said:When it comes to requiring formal education, I don't believe it qualifies as discrimination; however, when you look at mandatory prior experience, that is where the line is crossed!
Could you walk me through why you say it isn't, though, regarding the formal education side? I mean, who's to say someone who's self-taught hasn't actually mastered the material better than some candidate with a fancy degree?
I suppose you could call it discrimination... but...I'd argue it's the kind of discrimination that’s perfectly acceptable, and frankly, it should stay that way. At the end of the day, an employer isn't obligated to jump through hoops just to verify skills learned outside a classroom. Plus, I really think a company has every right to insist on seeing proven experience first.
Question: Is it actually considered discrimination when an employer insists on formal education—like a specific degree from a university—or maybe certain years of prior experience—as a mandatory prerequisite for a job opening?
Paul Jones7 As stated by: I don't necessarily need to know the specifics. However, one might wonder how to discern the truth in a more general sense. I wouldn't presume to offer my opinion, nor would I wish to involve myself in such matters.
That was a fair assessment.
Quincy:
If we strictly adhere to the principle that a hypothesis cannot be proposed without absolute empirical proof, one might wonder if the very concept of sharing an opinion becomes obsolete. Must we all become career researchers just to voice a thought? It seems almost as though we are being asked to follow the rigid protocols of a federal investigation just to engage in basic conversation. 🙂
My friend, you are treating this like a spiritual treatise in PDF format; there is certainly no need to write a scientific dissertation here just to share an opinion.
The notion that one should refrain from forming or expressing an opinion is a fallacy; in truth, such intellectual engagement is not merely permitted, but essential to a healthy discourse.
I am not searching this space for rigorous scientific precision or a strict methodological framework, nor am I looking for an analysis of that spirituality PDF; rather, what I am seeking is a fundamental sense of intellectual honesty. It feels as though one is attempting to construct a thesis that is intentionally shielded from verification—a proposition where, as you suggest, being held to any standard of proof simply isn't the objective.
Unverifiable premises may serve as a legitimate foundation for faith or hope, yet they certainly lack the substance required to constitute an intellectually rigorous argument.
I mean, I guess you’re looking at intellectual value through this strictly pragmatic, scientific lens—which, honestly, feels like a pretty narrow way to see things. It’s almost like looking through a keyhole, if you will. There’s actually a specific term for that kind of tunnel vision.
urbanwalker72 said:😁 But how would one actually distinguish between the first and the second?
Is that merely a matter of your own subjective judgment? Is there any way to measure this objectively?
In your reasoning, there appears to be a logical fallacy, specifically because you are building an entire thesis upon the unproven assumption that certain experiences exist without a material origin.
If there is some Source X that serves as the origin of spiritual experiences, you claim that X represents the "spirit," whereas I contend that X is simply "matter."
Neither of us possesses absolute proof regarding the true nature of X, yet we can at least agree that matter exists; we cannot definitively say whether anything exists beyond the material realm.
I may be mistaken in my hypothesis, but at least I am constructing it upon a foundation that is undeniably real.
Your hypothesis lacks validity because it rests upon something whose very existence remains entirely unknown.
I mean—it’s not like I actually need to know. And honestly? How would you even tell the difference anyway? I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it, and frankly, I don't think I'd even want to get mixed up in that mess.
urbanwalker72 said:😁 But how would one actually distinguish between the first and the second?
Is that merely a matter of your own subjective judgment? Is there any way to measure this objectively?
In your reasoning, there appears to be a logical fallacy, specifically because you are building an entire thesis upon the unproven assumption that certain experiences exist without a material origin.
If there is some Source X that serves as the origin of spiritual experiences, you claim that X represents the "spirit," whereas I contend that X is simply "matter."
Neither of us possesses absolute proof regarding the true nature of X, yet we can at least agree that matter exists; we cannot definitively say whether anything exists beyond the material realm.
I may be mistaken in my hypothesis, but at least I am constructing it upon a foundation that is undeniably real.
Your hypothesis lacks validity because it rests upon something whose very existence remains entirely unknown.
So, what—we can’t even put forward a thesis without a mountain of evidence? I mean, are we just not allowed to have an opinion anymore unless we've published a peer-reviewed paper in some academic journal? Even if you aren't exactly a scientist, you know... I guess we're just supposed to sit here in silence? Honestly, it feels like we're being policed. 🙂
Man, you’re out here writing like you're submitting a PhD dissertation on spirituality—it’s a forum, not a lecture hall. You don't need a ten-page thesis just to say what's on your mind, I guess.
Look, from where I'm sitting, there seem to be two ways this could play out—in theory, at least
1. It actually tunes the brain to be a better receiver for spiritual experiences 2. Or, it just tricks the brain into feeling a fake sensation
If we happen to hit on number one—whether that’s by accident or on purpose—then everything else really just comes down to how we choose to label it. It's basically a matter of definition, I guess... what we decide counts as a "spiritual experience" in the first place
But honestly, it feels to me like that 'god helmet' thing was leaning much more toward number two than number one
I mean, they’re literally discussing what homosexuality actually entails. How can you even claim someone is off-topic if you don't even grasp the scope of the subject at hand? It just shows—well, it shows you haven't really wrapped your head around it. Not to mention, the whole point of a thread isn't just the narrow definition of social issues as a concept; it’s also about debating what those issues should include, or shouldn't, in the first place. That debate itself is part of the discussion.
So, what's the fix here? If this is truly off-topic in your eyes—which, for the record, I don't agree with at all, and you haven't even explained *why* it's off-topic—are we supposed to just start a whole new thread? One with such a massive, vague definition that it somehow covers both social issues and homosexuality simultaneously?
And please, don't try to tell me that homosexuality is some sort of forbidden topic that's strictly off-limits for discussion.
If the UN is already incorporating homosexuality into its agenda, then you can't just ban discussions about it within the context of the UN. Look at the logic here: according to the UN, homosexuality isn't some forbidden taboo when it comes to children—it's actually part of the curriculum being taught (and it is being taught)—so how does it make sense that for people discussing it in a forum thread about that very same UN policy, it suddenly becomes an off-limits topic?
That’s what I call tabooing a subject; plus, calling it "off-topic" doesn't really hold water either. As for locking the thread, I honestly don't see any justification for it. Aside from one single post, this was a completely civilized cultural debate, and people from both sides are just left scratching their heads wondering why it was shut down—I was even chatting with a user who's on the complete opposite side of this issue, and both of us were just baffled as to why the thread was locked 😕)
I don't want to start a whole new thread here, but I was hoping for some clarification—maybe someone could explain why posts that were clearly on-topic regarding the foreign affairs discussion ended up getting flagged as off-topic? It feels a bit strange to get hit with warnings when we were actually sticking to the subject at hand. And honestly, I'm wondering why this keeps becoming such a flashpoint again... especially since the conversation seemed perfectly relevant to the topic we were all having.
Look, there’s this thing about topics—they have their own little bubble, right? You’ve got the immediate subject matter, sure, but then you’ve got the broader context too. I mean, anything that actually fits within the scope of the subject should really be considered part of the topic itself. If the moderation team can't tell whether someone is actually staying on track or just drifting off, then... well, I guess you could say the moderation isn't exactly hitting the mark. It feels a bit off when they can't distinguish between a relevant point and something totally out of left field.
I’m honestly looking to get all those off-topic strikes overturned—the ones the moderator "The Edge" handed out today. I really think he missed the mark on what actually counts as off-topic here, and, I don't know, maybe he just got a little lost with the moderation guidelines? It feels like he's a bit confused about where the line is drawn.
Brenda Cook4 said:Look, if people actually care about a topic, why bother locking it down? If they don't care, then the thread just kind of dies a natural death anyway.
Exactly. Anything else is really just a way to censor speech.
Ryan Vaughn7 said:Did I already give this a thumbs up and a finger point? Pretty sure I did. There’s really nothing left to add to this thread at the moment—if anything actually changes, I guess the discussion will open back up on its own. In the meantime, let's not turn this place into a free billboard for people trying to push their little manifestos on everyone else—you know, that crowd obsessed with public health lectures and whatnot. Not that I have anything against them, mind you—sending them my best, truly.
It feels like we’re basically hitting a wall here—like someone just slapped a "do not enter" sign on the whole conversation. It's essentially tabooing the subject, which, if you think about it, is really just a fancy way of saying free speech is being shut down. I mean, I'm curious, though—what exactly is the logic being used here? What’s the underlying principle that suddenly makes this specific topic off-limits for any further discussion?
I mean, if that's really how things are standing... I guess we'll just have to see where it goes. Maybe? It feels like one of those situations where you're waiting for the other shoe to drop—you know what I mean? Everything seems sort of up in the air right now. I don't have any content to rewrite yet. Please provide the posts you want me to transform! If this topic is becoming a total taboo around here—which, honestly, feels like it’s happening—then I’m putting out a call to everyone following this thread. Let's just reach an informal agreement to find an alternative spot or channel where we can actually talk about this stuff openly. I mean, if this forum isn't willing to host the conversation, I'm sure someone else out there would be happy to provide a space for some honest debate—especially since, you know, free speech is pretty much guaranteed by the Constitution and international law. It's not like we're asking for much, really.
This is definitely about more than just the legal technicalities—it’s much bigger than that. Personally, I think we should steer this conversation back toward the political side of things, which is where it actually belongs anyway. The legal forum tends to narrow the scope of the discussion way too much, in my opinion
I already posted earlier in this thread about whether this counts as a win or not—and if you look at the luck of the draw and how they actually played (well, except for that game against the Danes), maybe it’s a failure. But then again, if we consider that since 2004 we haven't really pulled anything bigger than silver even with much bigger names on the roster, then this is actually a huge success.
I mean, you just have to look at the injury list... honestly, when has a squad dealing with that many key injuries ever walked away with gold?
The real issue is just this American inferiority complex. Looking at things over the last few years, it feels like we've developed this mindset where anything less than gold is worthless, and anyone who doesn't hit that mark is treated like a complete idiot or a total failure.
Paul Jones7 said:The Americans have the edge when it comes to raw physicality—they seem less worn down and more energized—plus there's that motivational factor, you know, since they rarely get a shot at a medal. We’ve got the experience on our side, though. Maybe even the quality, if you don't consider the state of our hospitals...
I guess playing against the neighbors might be enough motivation for them, though.
I actually misjudged things once; I expected the Americans to be in much better shape, but it turns out they weren't any fresher than we were.
The Americans have the edge physically—they seem less worn out and just more energized overall—plus they’ve got that motivational boost since they rarely get a shot at a medal, not to mention they’re actually healthy. We’ve got the experience on our side, though. It would probably be a toss-up on pure talent too, but given the state of the infirmary lately...
Maybe they'll find some extra grit just because they're playing against their neighbors from across the border.
Kevin Ramos21 said:I mean, it’s better if they take it out on the Americans or the Dance team rather than the home crowd—any way you slice it, it's a win. And honestly, when people say someone is "tanking," they don't necessarily mean they're throwing the game on purpose... it's more like just playing at half-capacity.
So, by that logic, does "tanking" mean instead of actually driving down the road, you just pull over and go fill up the car?
nimblewalker4 said:It’s all part of some massive conspiracy, obviously. Rocas wasn't actually aiming for the post—I mean, he's basically a superhuman, right? He doesn't just miss a shot whenever he feels like it; no, he hits the woodwork with such insane precision that if it had been just one centimeter to the left, it would have been a goal.
It’s all just one big setup.
What a load of nonsense. When you're hitting the post at that sharp of an angle, a little bit of spin is all it takes to send it into the net.
boldfox88 said:the biggest issue when we play against the Frenchmen is honestly just mental. losing possession, missing wide open shots—and I mean wide open in handball, for God's sake—and just firing directly at Omeyer. That same Omeyer goes against us and consistently makes fifteen saves, whereas normally he can't be touched. Against the Germans, he only had, what, two or three saves? 🤷
That psychological hurdle is fixable, I suppose, but I’m not entirely sure someone like Goluža could ever wrap his head around it. They aren't invincible—not based on the last two tournaments, anyway.
If there was even a shred of common sense in the coaching staff, we could definitely take the French down. We could have done it back in London, too, but no—some guy from the French bench just hammers four goals in a row on the exact same—well, identical!—pattern, while Duvnjak just completely freezes up, and then you've got Ivano, who’s arguably the most stubborn guy of this entire generation, just sitting there on the bench through the whole turning point.
Back in the day, when we actually had some physical presence, we could beat them in one match out of every two, provided we played smart.
But now, we aren't quite as strong as we used to be, and they are. Now, we're basically walking into a buzzsaw. Even the Spanish women would have walked all over us if they felt like it. You could see it all yesterday.
Charles Peterson5 said:The whole idea is that this win basically guarantees us an easier path through the round of 16. It gives the squad some much-needed breathing room before we hit the quarterfinals. I mean, looking at how things are going, the French and the Danes are probably starting to sweat—it feels like that gold medal just slipped a little further out of their reach now that we're moving ahead.
Sure, an easier road to the quarters by facing some underdog... yeah, the classic excuse...
I just don't see the point in playing these group stages—it feels like everything is rigged just to squeeze out more matches and more TV revenue, which I guess is just Mustafa's big master plan for his company and all that. How many pointless, filler games did we end up with in the second group? One team walks away with 4 points while another gets nothing, so those guys who get zero lose their first game in the second round and basically lose any motivation to even step on the field.
It wasn't really like that, though. Sometimes aiming for 5th or even 6th place was enough motivation, especially if it guaranteed a spot in the next tournament. But even without that, very few national teams act like they're superstars—you don't really see them getting so discouraged about missing the semifinals that they stop fighting for every win or trying to climb the rankings. I personally remember teams fighting for every single position, even those stuck in the second round with 0 points, just to avoid looking like a total embarrassment.
I don't know, I think we’re seeing this from completely different angles. Personally, I actually preferred that old system. I kind of liked seeing us play more high-stakes, intense matches.
George Robinson43 said:Right... those spots aren't even remotely the same thing. I mean, everyone knows you don't score goals in soccer, hockey, or water polo—wait, actually, I guess that's just wrong, but you get my point about how different things can be.
Using a cup system cuts down the number of rounds, which honestly adds more depth to the whole thing.
We could sit here and go back and forth on this until tomorrow morning, really, but I think you see where I'm coming from. And if you don't, well, that's fine too.