I reject this idea because who says women can't marry multiple men?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
You are subjectively determining the definition of "sport" and "athlete" and considering them set-in-stone. That's fine. But as the rest of the world continues to use the term athlete to define a professional gamer and you become more and more bitter towards this fact, many of us will continue to roll our eyes and think "who cares"? I get it, marriage is not gaming. One has a lawful meaning and one doesn't. That only makes it more likely that your expiring notion of the term athlete is going to change to include pro gamers - in this case, there is no lawful definition.
I disagree with you. Pretty sure a past-time is in some instances part of the definition of sports. Plus, if I don't show prowess am I still playing a sport if I'm playing in a softball league. Definitions are not and have never been static. Accept change.
It is the same in how opposition to the notion seem to be offended at the thought of it. its truly amusing.
opposition to LGTB marriage. how is speculating on including something new into a definition getting this much of a rise out of people?
oops. you got me. that's potentially the submitter mislabeling of the title then. the article makes no mention of athletes.
and email isn't mail. what's your point?
i fail to see the use of the word "athlete" regarding the players? its used to refer to sports athletes that have changed sports in the past as a comparison.
but throwing a ball is use full like all other? if useless means you can earn a living doing it, is it still useless?
Or the people who don't want this to happen started the practice the next day to eventually lead to this story to make the situation more visible?
Platform being broken down by OS type or version?
For the US Supreme Court to decide that each individually US activated device is a person AND can contribute to campaign finance.
There's obviously something fundamental about what I am suggesting that you don't agree with. I wasn't intending to sway the masses with my original post, I just think it has a decent likelihood of being valid.
There is exactly zero reason for someone to be homeless but it happens. I believe it's likely there could be legitimate excuses for being a bully. I'm not suggesting that something shouldn't be done about that, though. I respect your posts and appreciate the conversation.
Human beings under the age of 18 are capable of performing acts of their own will, yes. Sometimes children are tried in court as adults for their perceived willful actions. I don't disagree with you on anything you're saying but you are assuming I have some bully-promoting motive. This bully could plainly be a sinister little shit but generally a child is (for good reason) not held fully accountable for ALL of their actions and that is something that should be considered in this debate - and in each bully debate worldwide. I am not suggesting the bully should or should not be held accountable but am pointing out the potential complex societal structure in place which may or may NOT have contributed to the situation being discussed. I strongly believe these situations are not as simple as they often seem. Somehow I get the feeling that you will still consider me to be taking the side of the bully.
No. Not at all. I am not claiming to have any answers. I just wanted to make a point that I hadn't seen anyone else raise. Is my point out of line?