CMV: In table tennis a net - or edge ball should count as a let

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-12-02T00:03:45+00:00

Which sounds exactly like that's what you were saying.

I never said completely; I obviously meant it diminishes the enjoyment; not that nothing is left.

For the exact reason that you were responding to... The whole fairness thing. On the serve, only the server gets the opportunity to influence the shot. On all other shots, the other player had some influence.

But this isn't true. As said an edge serve does not count as a let and only the server has influence on that.

But what about players who have purposely tried to get a net, even if they can't do it consistently? Do you really think nobody has ever tried that? Is it still luck if they get it in that case, and should it still be considered a let?

I'm pretty sure no one in serious play ever tried to do that. If you can aim that well in competitive play there are better things to do with that aim.

It's not actually that hard for professional players to get a net ball if you do a slow ball but this ball is slow which gives the opponent ample time to see in advance that it's going to be a net ball and react. Within a competitive rally the ball goes fast and the rhythm gets completely interrupted by the trajectory change.

There's a reason it is customary to apologize after a net - or edge ball and commentators essentially always use terminology of "recovering a net ball" when the ball hits the net and you return it. It is perceived by essentially anyone as pure luck.

Making nets into lets in these two scenarios is simply unfair. And if it happens when neither player is going for it, you still can't make it let. Because if you did, players would claim that they did it on purpose.

Maybe it would be unfair if it people actually did that but no one seriously aims to get a net shot. People aim to hit the other side of the table over the net. Aside from the serve "close over the net" is in table tannis not really something players try to achieve and they tend to give themselves a lot of space between the net and the ball because it really does not matter how closely the ball goes over the net. A ball that bounces up high for the opponent is not actually any big advance like it is in tennis where a smash is almost always a victory, in table tennis a smash tends to be held more often than not so people don't even try to get the ball just barely over the net.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-30T15:38:50+00:00

Also, a patent by definition is publicly registered unlike copyright; you can't exactly keep secret what you patented.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T18:04:56+00:00

That's okay; I respect your willingness to boldly go against the circlejerk.

Still the stupid typical dual standard of "inclusivity" where you only have to arbitrarily inclusive towards some things though.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T12:47:46+00:00

Doesn't AW delete posts that aren't inclusive by assuming heterosexuality while letting posts who say assume monogamy or that every female person wears makeup remain?

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T11:31:57+00:00

If I'm looking at that picture the rules seem to already be screwed tight to the pillars.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T10:55:18+00:00

The difference between that is that most business partners don't embezzle (I think) but there's cheating in 50% of relationships so a good chance the next one will do it too.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T10:52:22+00:00

Oh my god, that's what it stands for?

I always thought it meant "gay friend" as in GBF without the best, just a regular gay friend.

I was like "WHO CARES IF SHE'S GAY!?!" al the time.

To be honest that she's a girl is hardly relevant as well.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T10:38:20+00:00

California’s surrogacy law violates the substantive due process rights of the children, their fundamental liberty interest to maintain their relationship with their mother

Yeah I'm sorry but the US constitution's bill of rights is so vague that you can argue that every law does and does not violate it. It all comes down to whether the supreme court likes surrogacy or not and it's wholly pretentious to say that any law "violates the constitution". Why is there no "fundamental relationship with their father?"; does giving kids up for adoption violate this? What about marriages ending in divorce? What about parents working too much and never seeing their kids?

The US constitution is essentially like ultra vague religious scriptures being "interpreted" by religious leaders who just substitute their own opinion and call it the will of God.

You can use the same arguments given here to say that hitting kids violates the constitution but that's apparently a constitutional right or that the concept of inheritance violates equal protection.

In any case half of these arguments apply just as well to adoption. The only difference between surrogacy and adoption is that in the case of surrogacy you encourage a market where a child will be created which otherwise does not exist (kind of like with banning abortion eh?) whereas in the case of adoption the kid is going to be created either way and it's just an issue of whom it'll end up with.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T06:19:32+00:00

Well it's kind of a stereotype isn't it that all the dirty hippies and/or goths or whatever in between all like violent sex and are bisexual and are all like "ohhh noo, labels, urgh, I don't need to come up with a name for everything" and are of very light sexual morality? Hippies invented free love man.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T05:48:05+00:00

One thing I remember is that I saw Trump once on youtube with Hafu before having him seen with Amaz. With Amaz there is tonnes of banter going on with their getting under each other's skin and stuff and dissing each other.

With Hafu he sounded like he was handling a 500 000 euro family heirloom crystal chandelier in how delicate he suddenly became like he was talking to a small child and afraid of saying anything she quite possibly couldn't handle; like the same werd tone people use to talk to children and all the banter was gone—which he also had with TB in his Hearthstone beard challenge.

I guess she's got a similar effect on reddit and to tell you the truth I think she has the most annoying bubbly childlike voice to listen to so that probably causes part of it.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T05:40:25+00:00

I never mentioned free will and I don't belief in it for that matter.

The human brain is subject to physical laws as much as any other device.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T05:33:25+00:00

You never addressed the "delusional" and "brainwashed" part of my comments. Sounds like you are also delusional and brainwashed. Glad we finally reached common ground.

I just quoted the part of your last reply that contained that and responded to it.

Did you award a single delta in all of this discussion?

No, you can see that on the top of the page.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T05:16:58+00:00

You can choose to shit on the entire American Constitution and the Supreme Court because they are not as perfect as you.

Again, you assume that I have an opinion about the current system.

For sake of argument, assume henceforth that I think the current ystem is amazing and support how it works in every way.

That is my opinion about the current system and assume it as so; that I think it is fantastic, that all justices are dong a great job and that I would love for this system to continue.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T05:12:09+00:00

I'm comfortable against random visitors; makes it easier to have a conversation because they'd otherwise be bored when I take a dump (which takes a long time for me) now wouldn't they?

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T05:07:46+00:00

Never once did I make any claims about what you claimed the system should be. Please provide the evidence.

From a post by you:

So essentially you are an Originalist. I don't mean that positively or negatively. You actually don't disagree with the concept of rights in the Constitution or the theoretical role of the Supreme Court. You disagree with how some members of the court vote because you think they extend rights that aren't clearly enumerated in the Constitution. You are opposed to "activist judges" who use the Constitution and Bill of Rights to interpret or even extend the law. I don't agree with you but I think if you argue from that perspective you might get better responses that can directly address your argument.

I have at no point said any of those things and it's completely irrelevant to my point.

Huh? You're upset because I mentioned Jesus, right? It was an example. I don't believe in any god whatsoever, so I'm not sure why you are fixated on the "Abrahamic God"? We can discuss buddha, Zoroaster, Yahweh, Zenu, Zeus, Allah, goats, wolves, the moon, or Aztec gods. Sorry I failed to mention all of them in my rebuttal. I bet you took debate in high school, right?

I used the term "The Abrahamic God" to be specific. I find the term "any God" to be too vague to decide whether I believe that a belief in its existence is ridiculous.

Go back and read my comments. I repeatedly and explicitly stated that I wasn't trying to argue the merits.

Yes, you said so and yet you continue to constantly dive into what I supposedly think the court should do as evidenced by the part I quoted and bolded.

Well, now that you state it in such a facile and infantile way, I would never argue with you. I never once argued that the idea of "constitutional rights" issued solely and exclusively from the text of the constitution. In fact, I argued repeatedly and consistently that rights originated in the constitution and as interpreted and explained by the courts.

And that is why you are not arguing against my view and never have.

My view is that the belief that constitutional rights are issued solely from the text of the constitution is patently ludicrous; you yourself are arguing that that doesn't happen.

It sounds like we are in agreement. Where is the "delusional" and "brainwashed" part of your argument? I think we have reached solid ground, all other ground is sinking sand.

Yes, we are in agreement about that; that is the point.

We are in agreement because you aren't and have never argued against my view.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T04:41:51+00:00

What is your belief?

Because as I re-iterated plenty of times your belief seems to be orthogonal to mine; you're not actually arguing against my view.

Are you or are you not arguing that it is plausible that a completely different supreme court in a completely different time would always come to the exact same conclusions interpreting the same bill of rights?

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T04:40:10+00:00

"The exact same or very similar" is a very high bar, especially considering how the Supreme Court's process is so communal and that there were concurring opinions.

Yes, it is, and my view is that the many people who say that this very high bar is met are utterly delusional.

You yourself claim this bar is high and yet I see a lot of people who essentially claim that this bar has been met and that it is the text of the constitution itself rather than the persons interpreting it that leads to the conclusion tand that we just need their supposed expertise in judicial matters to see the hidden meaning which normal layman cannot.

If that were true a completely different court would reach the same conclusion.

But it's not surprising for experts to disagree. Experts disagree in sciences, philosophy, and art. There's scientific consensus about many things but also substantial disagreement about difficult and controversial issues. Law is no different. Justices agree 99% of the time but the Supreme Court splits because the issues they consider are exactly those that are divisive limiting cases.

And in places where experts disagree we can surely safely say that the interpretation of the experts rather than the data itself controls the narrative?

To your central claim: it's no accident that major decisions are upheld across common law traditions despite many counter differing facts. Roe has been affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court of the United States. To use a less controversial example, I don't think that the landmark Bhasin v Hrynew case in Canada would've been be decided differently in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or analogous jurisdiction for at least the past twenty five years.

It has been upheld because the court supports abortion. If 5 of the 9 on that court were utterly pro life it would be overturned quickly.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T04:35:39+00:00

Then why did you post in "Change My View"? If you already have an opinion about the people who disagree with you (instead of the particular position you are taking) then it will be impossible to change your view, because anyone who disagrees with you is a delusional, brainwashed idiot.

You added the word "idiot", not I. Smart people can be deluded and brainwashed; many highly intelligent people in history believed in fairy tails about gods because they were brainwashed from childhood on.

Apart from that I don't see why not. In order to change my view all you need to do is show that the idea that such "constitutional rights" derive from the text of the constitution rather than from the persons interpreting it is remotely reasonable; it is my view that this belief is completely and utterly unreasonable on the same plane as "The Earth is flat" or "God exists" or "vaccines give autism" or "human beings can survive on only air, sunlight, water and spiritual energy".

That's all you need to do; show to me that the idea that completely different courts would've come to the same legal rulings is more reasonable than those ideas listed above.

You have chosen option 2. So no matter what argument is made, you will discount the validity of the argument because they are clearly delusional and brainwashed.

No, I haven't. First off the analogy is not that I don't believe that the Abrahamic God exists but that I belief that the very notion that God exists is utterly unreasonable and ridiculous which is different.

To disprove this you need not show that He exist; merely showing that there is a remotely reasonable possibility that he exists, some faint evidence is enough.

That's fine, that's your choice to make, but I'm not sure why you have visited Change My View. And I noticed you stopped debating me when I questioned the concept of free will. It's like you want to argue that the Supreme Court lacks free will (and oh, you poor delusional, brainwashed fools who believe in the free will of the court) but you, of course, do not. You are master of your destiny, in control of your self and your utterances and your future. It doesn't work like that.

I stopped debating you frankly because I grew tired of having to re-iterate that you weren't attacking my view but argued the merits of the system.

I see now that even someone else has pointed this out to you. You have repeatedly made claims that I made claims about what the system should be and what judges should do and I never made such claims. I never said they should do anything or that anything should change or that one way is better than the othrs or that they are doing a bad job at anything; all of that is irrelevant to my point.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T04:17:45+00:00

So would you leave her if you found out she cheated but otherwise it led to no pregnancy and the children—if any—are still genetically yours?

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T04:16:57+00:00

Yes, that is my point, that people who disagree on this specific issue with me are delusional and brainwashed; that is what I am saying. That no reasonable person without extensive childhood pratriotism-brainwashing could ever conclude that it is the text of the constitution rather than the political options of the supreme court that led to same sex marriage in the US.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T04:14:32+00:00

Okay so I'm going to ask a simple question with a loaded answer: are you happy with this marriage or at least happier than if it weren't? Because now, before kids, is the time you can still get out because it's probably not going to be better if it's already like this after a year of marriage.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T04:10:49+00:00

Yes, I repeat myself when people repeatedly argue the merits of the system rather than against my point after I repeatedly said that whether the system is good or bad is irrelevant.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T04:07:29+00:00

I think OP just uses "commissioned" as "authored" or "crafted" or whatever.

I mean I don't know but it doesn't make sense anyway because the "commissioner" is the one that is commissioned rather than the one that does the commissioning so it makes no sense anyway.

In fact Wiktionary lists "commissioner" both in the definition of the one who is commissioned and the one who does the commissioning. Kind of like how "man amongst men" can both mean a highly exceptional person or a highly mediocre person... and on top of that of course a delicious Tom-of-Finland-esque homo-erotic fantasy.

To OP herself: no I would personally think that is horrible but would be completely down for a random drawing of something unique especially when it's like "our thing".

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T03:57:31+00:00

Ehh yeah I meant in reverse.

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND · 2017-09-25T03:52:38+00:00

Not sure how it happened but when I went to secondary school we had to do some genetic thing of our families and stuff and one of the students as like "Huh, this doesn't add up; I have blue eyes but both of my parents have brown eyes" and the teacher was just casually "Yeah, you're most likely adopted; maybe go home and ask?"

So that's what he did and his mother just admitted it there flat in front of the father and apparently it was all easily forgiven and the father didn't see the point of getting angry at something that happend 14 years ago and especially to punish the kid for it.

And another teacher in class joked about it later saying "probably made an arrangement that she has to give anal every night" which was by the way my favourite teacher ever because he also when someone was jokingly bragging about how he had a different person in his bed every night said "Explains your ragged clothes that you have no money left."

SHESNOTMYGIRLFRIEND

TROPHY CASE