Miscellaneous Thread Part II Watch

This discussion is closed.
Pimped Butterfly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#9601
Report 3 years ago
#9601
(Original post by AR_95)
Not even mad
Go make a twitter poll asking for him to be banned
0
little_wizard123
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9602
Report 3 years ago
#9602
Having an important debate with a friend. What percentage of the male population in the UK can do:

A) one pull-up (from hanging, obviously)
B) ten pressups
C) bench their body weight.
0
Fizzel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9603
Report 3 years ago
#9603
When you consider ages and obesity probably less than 50 for any of them. I'd think 10 press ups, one pull up, and then body weight bench press in decreasing percentage.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Depleted
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9604
Report 3 years ago
#9604
(Original post by Fizzel)
Well he's not actually saying we can afford it, he's just going to fund it by taking money from the pot with which we directly give money to people in Syria for example. Its a reshuffling of existing funding. In the bluntest of terms, someone will die somewhere else, probably in some refugee camp, to provide them with support here. Funding is already on the brink (as being reported today by the UN) and we're going to be diverting our aid budget to deal with a 'foreign' issue, domestically.
But there's no need for that to happen. We can afford to plunge more money into foreign aid, it's just not seen as a priority, so the whole financial woe's point is a myth. It's probably at this point that we evaluate how life has become so worthless that there's people on here, and in the wider public, who are on big bucks with vast amounts of disposable income that choose to ignore and protest against an influx of people fleeing from a terror regime they only see on their flat-screen TV's, and who are so desperate that they're willing to jump on overcrowded boats and see their 3 year old children wash up face first on beach. But maybe that's for another day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34167271
[*]-The government has committed to spending 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid

-There is scope for the UK to increase the amount it spends because the international aid budget is tied to the country's GDP - a figure used to measure economic activity - which grew by 2.6% in 2014
(Original post by Fizzel)
The whole thing in my view related to a much wider point which ultimately is a death of a society. Whether that was always the case or engineered I don't know but Thatcher was right, there is no such thing as society, only individuals and a small circle of people they care about. That small circle can be engineered to a larger size by a force such as or similar to nationalism.
But the answer here is not to accept our predicaments and continue the cycle. The cliches really do ring true, MLK and Malcolm X are testamant to that. There's greater power in the masses than can be imagined. I don't mean to go all hippy, but i'm not a fan of the ''things will never change'' stance.

(Original post by Fizzel)
I don't think any of those are in action to motive people on this issue or others, which is why people can appear apathetic, that cannot be scaled up to 7billion people without being diluted to a point of near meaninglessness. Whether or not its understood, thats the root of Zurich's point Europe as a distinct entity is ****ed without a glue which binds it together, this is one more stage in that realisation. A geographical area filled with individual who have no common race, language, religion, culture or values. Its in the last regard Islamic migration is noteworthy as many would question whether it is indeed compatible with Western values, via classic liberalism.
I don't see why that would be the first stepping stone. Our commonality is that we're all homo sapiens first and foremost, and everyone deserves the right to life without terror (and the irony is that this stance would go against everything purported about the so called ''Western Values'' that we hear; that is to not judge on creed or faith). It's a strange point to be made, that is if i've interpreted it correctly.

(Original post by Fizzel)
I think Wilf's point has grounding. Caring without obligation is utterly worthless anywhere other than your head, only actions have outcomes
I heavily disagree. There's a distinction to be made between holding a viewpoint in theory, whilst possessing the tools to enforce the change, or that mode of thinking but in practical terms not being able to carry it out. It would render the vast majority of opinions useless in fact; taking it a bit further there's an argument to be made that only politicans should speak about national matters as we have little to no control over them (it would also mean Wilf's stance was inconsequental; that is to say that as he has no control over our foreign aid policy nor our immigration borders, his opinion is worthless).
(Original post by Fizzel)
I have nihilistic view on life and no strong views either way, but I think this huge dislocation of peoples into Europe will have consequence for European society beyond simply financial. Its not a lack of empathy which leads to such a view point but a feeling that the outcome of them coming in will have consequences for that nation and the people within it to whom a obligation is felt. I don't think its a coincidence financial strife and large scale immigration is resulting in the re-emergence of nationalism, which is a powerful and dangerous force.
It's no coincidence, but it's not that big an issue, when you factor in that the vast majority of xenophobia stems from low income, uneducated households (in a blunt way, you can't blame a refugee for your financial plight if you dropped out of school with 1 GCSE, 2 kids and 3 STI's). There's no line of defence for the UK anyway, when you consider where the world was 100 years ago (and the British Empire was global). It's a simplistic way to look at it, but it's estimated 5 million South Asian men lost their lives fighting in a war that wasn't theirs, so there's a level of debt that's owed to immigrants from that side of the world. No doubt there's a huge debt owed to Syrian and Iraqi refugees, we all know who's fault the emergence of ISIS is...
1
Fizzel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9605
Report 3 years ago
#9605
(Original post by Depleted)
But there's no need for that to happen. We can afford to plunge more money into foreign aid, it's just not seen as a priority, so the whole financial woe's point is a myth.
Who is 'we'? This comes back to the same point about society? When you say 'we' are you referring to yourself and your family? You personally are happy to see your NHS and other services and university funding withdrawn to help these people? Are you going to cancel your Netflix subscription and donate that money instead? As a serious question, how have you adjusted your standard of living to help these people, or do you simply expect it of others?
Spoiler:
Show

It's probably at this point that we evaluate how life has become so worthless
I would wager if it were British people or even French people the attitude would be different. However its Syrians and they are able to turn a blind eye in the same way you are to the plight of people in the Donbass or Darfur. As a nation we have always had a surplus of resources beyond poverty to help people. You still have homeless people on the street of London, let alone the rest of the world. I keep saying there is a difference between people caring and feeling that have to personally act towards addressing the problem.

As I said its existing funding commitments, there is no additional borrowing or budget cuts. This use of the foreign aid budget is actually Osbourne assuring the British people that they won't have to give anymore than they already do, and funding of their services will be compensated adequately to take the additional strain. Its actually quite a cynical move.

But the answer here is not to accept our predicaments and continue the cycle.
Depends how it seen, humans grouping is general driven by self interest either by conflict and competition, mutual benefit, or personal security. People don't usually associate unless it benefits them, or at the very least doesn't inconvenience them. The last point is the basis of internet activism.

I don't see why that would be the first stepping stone.
Not the first just one more. As said if being homo sapien is the only commonality in Europe, its ceases to exist as anything more than geographical area. What becomes the difference between living in Britain and living in Spain, what affinity is there to people down the street more so than people in Romania?

I heavily disagree.
You have the ability, you have disposable income, you have a parliamentary representative, you have the freedom to protest, and the freedom to live your life as you see fit. If this a matter of life and death, I assume you are donating money, have written to your MP, attending the matches this Sat in London, possibly taking a break in your studies or career to work for a charity or aid organisation? Which of those, largely free methods, are you going to be doing over the following months and if not why not?

It would render the vast majority of opinions useless in fact
You are talking about a change, so the position of doing nothing if you support that status quo. The UK's border policy and EU exemptions means, they have no requirement to accept anyone, no actions is required to change the outcome. Its not about opinions, opinions are of little use. We were talking about caring, empathy, not simply an opinion on the subject. The point was empathy or lack of is irrelevant if the situation does not change. Unless you have enacted some of the suggestions I made above, whether or not you care makes no difference to the situation. Refugees don't need your cares, they need food water and shelter, and unless your cares are translating into actions through which they achieve those things, your views being more empathetic are of little use. Displaying your opinion to your MP could influence his position and change the position of the government, caring does not.

It's no coincidence, but it's not that big an issue,
As someone who I assume is non white non Christian. I would say it should concern you as a big issue, because you'll be on the receiving end should a party like UKIP gain more popularity. Politicians sense to mood and will tailor their stance accordingly. From the Jews in Europe, the Blacks and Irish in the US, the Tatars in Russia, being a group on the wrong end of unchecked nationalism should be a big concern.

when you factor in that the vast majority of xenophobia stems from low income, uneducated households
These people still vote though, you don't get two voters for having a degree. They are citizens and if they don't take priority over non citizens, citizenship is largely meaningless. Which is another part of the death of society, "so what if you're British, who are you to me more than the next man?"

There's no line of defence for the UK anyway
I would say that is emotional guilt tripping, unless you can quantify that debt, how do you know when its paid or how much is owed? Historically speaking my relatives are certainly victims of the British slave trade, am I owed reparations? As a British citizen am I funding my own repatriations? How would you even set about decided when the debt has been paid or is it eternal? Are we deducting the UK aid contributions or the individual contributions of people and NGO's? You could simply counter the entire point with, 'that debt has been paid' its arbitrary.

we all know who's fault the emergence of ISIS is...
100% the blame of the people involved, its ceases to exist without members. There is nothing about the war in Iraq for example that means a wealthy Emirati has to fund the mass murder of people. Jihadi John for example is from Kuwait (the irony there). Members of ISIS aren't blowing up Mosques, enslaving women and murdering other faiths/sects because of any western intervention, very few westerners are suffering as a result of their actions. Their personal motives and justification towards their specific victims is their own. On this point and the last I doubt you would justify the current behaviour of the Israeli state on grounds of previous experiences of the Jewish people over the last century? You cannot expect them to act in a human manner anymore than members of ISIS, regardless of their victims.
0
Pimped Butterfly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#9606
Report 3 years ago
#9606
(Original post by Fizzel)
You personally are happy to see your NHS and other services and university funding withdrawn to help these people?
And more
Are you going to cancel your Netflix subscription and donate that money instead?
And more
As a serious question, how have you adjusted your standard of living to help these people, or do you simply expect it of others?
Giving time and money, and more. And yes, I expect it off others.
You have the ability, you have disposable income, you have a parliamentary representative, you have the freedom to protest, and the freedom to live your life as you see fit. If this a matter of life and death, I assume you are donating money, have written to your MP, attending the matches this Sat in London, possibly taking a break in your studies or career to work for a charity or aid organisation? Which of those, largely free methods, are you going to be doing over the following months and if not why not?
All of them, except attending the marches because I'm not local.

In any case, my personal answers are irrelevant. You are completely entitled as a member of society to call for society to act. If you do so whilst not acting when it's in your means, then obviously that's irrational and hypocritical and outright insulting but it is still within everyone's rights to call for society to act. Regardless of their personal ability to aid or not. Caring but not acting is regularly the spur for others to act, which is precisely the desired outcome. No doubt it's better to lead by example but it's ridiculous to think that caring in isolation is useless. Not caring at all is inhumane and symptomatic of the disgustingly apathetic country we live in.
0
Depleted
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9607
Report 3 years ago
#9607
(Original post by Fizzel)
Who is 'we'? This comes back to the same point about society? When you say 'we' are you referring to yourself and your family? You personally are happy to see your NHS and other services and university funding withdrawn to help these people? Are you going to cancel your Netflix subscription and donate that money instead? As a serious question, how have you adjusted your standard of living to help these people, or do you simply expect it of others?
We is the British government. You wouldn't have to make NHS cuts, university funding probably does need cutting as there's an excess of universities and degrees now, we could cut on our military spending, MP's expenses (there's a revolutionary idea!). I don't see why there's a need to personally interrogate a 19 year old student as to what huge changes he's made to his lifestyle to try and get one over on someone, there's of course a difference between me and a 35 year old couple with a 6 bedroom house in Knightsbridge.
Spoiler:
Show

I would wager if it were British people or even French people the attitude would be different. However its Syrians and they are able to turn a blind eye in the same way you are to the plight of people in the Donbass or Darfur. As a nation we have always had a surplus of resources beyond poverty to help people. You still have homeless people on the street of London, let alone the rest of the world. I keep saying there is a difference between people caring and feeling that have to personally act towards addressing the problem.[QUOTE]
But I don't turn a blind eye to Donbass or Darfur, it's you who's turned a blind eye to atrocities all over the world (no mention of Rohingya, no mention of Srebrenica below etc.) We have a moral responsibility for these people, like it or not we created (read heavily contributed to) their mess.

(Original post by Fizzel)
As I said its existing funding commitments, there is no additional borrowing or budget cuts. This use of the foreign aid budget is actually Osbourne assuring the British people that they won't have to give anymore than they already do, and funding of their services will be compensated adequately to take the additional strain. Its actually quite a cynical move
I don't think it's cynical. The public give millions every year, and to your average Joe it'd probably be a plus point to offer refugees a home by withdrawing funding from the military for example. Here's an example of that; it's a very simplistic demonstration and therefore flawed, but it's a nice indicator:




(Original post by Fizzel)
Depends how it seen, humans grouping is general driven by self interest either by conflict and competition, mutual benefit, or personal security. People don't usually associate unless it benefits them, or at the very least doesn't inconvenience them. The last point is the basis of internet activism.

Not the first just one more. As said if being homo sapien is the only commonality in Europe, its ceases to exist as anything more than geographical area. What becomes the difference between living in Britain and living in Spain, what affinity is there to people down the street more so than people in Romania?
But that's the point. There shouldn't be an affinity to that level on the basis of a place of birth (we're talking the most basic thing here; Life) so it's not unreasonable to expect humanity to take prevalence over Adam 3 houses down being funded through his Law degree. I don't believe that affinity really exists anyway, not in a true form anyway. The Bosnian genocide and Holocaust are examples of neighbours turning upon friends they've had for 20 years in a heartbeat. Of course the hatred stemmed from differences between the groups (namely religion), but then it's not a case of affinity by location anyway.

(Original post by Fizzel)
You have the ability, you have disposable income, you have a parliamentary representative, you have the freedom to protest, and the freedom to live your life as you see fit. If this a matter of life and death, I assume you are donating money, have written to your MP, attending the matches this Sat in London, possibly taking a break in your studies or career to work for a charity or aid organisation? Which of those, largely free methods, are you going to be doing over the following months and if not why not
Again I'm not a fan of the personal attack, but I'll answer. Yes I have signed petitions and letters to my local MP, I already volunteer for a charity and help to raise for money for global projects. I can't go to the London march as I'm nowhere near


(Original post by Fizzel)
You are talking about a change, so the position of doing nothing if you support that status quo. The UK's border policy and EU exemptions means, they have no requirement to accept anyone, no actions is required to change the outcome. Its not about opinions, opinions are of little use. We were talking about caring, empathy, not simply an opinion on the subject. The point was empathy or lack of is irrelevant if the situation does not change. Unless you have enacted some of the suggestions I made above, whether or not you care makes no difference to the situation. Refugees don't need your cares, they need food water and shelter, and unless your cares are translating into actions through which they achieve those things, your views being more empathetic are of little use. Displaying your opinion to your MP could influence his position and change the position of the government, caring does not.
I do agree with you, but I took exception to Wilf's points that it means nothing; not true. Intentions very often lead to action, and it's a positive to breed that kind of thought process into the next generation (aka us). The pessimissm leads to the point where we actually can act upon it, but we've either lost the compassion to do it or we actually don't know how to. That's more a long term view and looking forward to events that are inevitably going to come though.

(Original post by Fizzel)
As someone who I assume is non white non Christian. I would say it should concern you as a big issue, because you'll be on the receiving end should a party like UKIP gain more popularity. Politicians sense to mood and will tailor their stance accordingly. From the Jews in Europe, the Blacks and Irish in the US, the Tatars in Russia, being a group on the wrong end of unchecked nationalism should be a big concern

These people still vote though, you don't get two voters for having a degree. They are citizens and if they don't take priority over non citizens, citizenship is largely meaningless. Which is another part of the death of society, "so what if you're British, who are you to me more than the next man?"
Not a massive concern as it stands because it's a tiny minority that feel that way. The government won't change their stance for them, and there's 100 other problems they've got before xenophobia rears it's ugly head. I don't disagree that nationalism and citizenship is important, but it should not be extrapolated to a point where people are dying due to our negligence on the basis of a few extra bodies in the country. Nationalism is returning as British are declining, falling behind in school league tables to 2nd generation immigrants, but Cameron knows a full blown war (metaphorically and literally speaking) isn't worth starting because Andy failed his BTEC and got beaten to a job by an Indian with a masters.

(Original post by Fizzel)
I would say that is emotional guilt tripping, unless you can quantify that debt, how do you know when its paid or how much is owed? Historically speaking my relatives are certainly victims of the British slave trade, am I owed reparations? As a British citizen am I funding my own repatriations? How would you even set about decided when the debt has been paid or is it eternal? Are we deducting the UK aid contributions or the individual contributions of people and NGO's? You could simply counter the entire point with, 'that debt has been paid' its arbitrary.
For sure it's guilt-tripping, but it doesn't make it invalid. There's no quantifiable debt, but it's a damn good reason to show a little more compassion and maybe right some of the wrongs of our stained history. It's a very idealistic way to view the world, granted, but it's not morally right to turn our backs and play the independent card when we've a rich history of colonisation and war-starting.


(Original post by Fizzel)
100% the blame of the people involved, its ceases to exist without members. There is nothing about the war in Iraq for example that means a wealthy Emirati has to fund the mass murder of people. Jihadi John for example is from Kuwait (the irony there). Members of ISIS aren't blowing up Mosques, enslaving women and murdering other faiths/sects because of any western intervention, very few westerners are suffering as a result of their actions. Their personal motives and justification towards their specific victims is their own.
We bred these Terrorists. Invading Iraq, killing Saddam, starting a full blown Shia-Sunni war and then neglecting the Assad situation before training freedom fighters who became radicalised. Can you honestly say that none of that contributed? We've got previous, Bin Laden was made by the CIA. It's a case of the West foolishly dumping people when no longer needed, and eventually you do it to the wrong person and things go wrong. I'm no ISIS apologist (they'd probably kill me before they kill you), but it's naive to absolve the UK and US of responsibility for it's breeding. If we'd taken out Assad, it probably, in fact likely, wouldn't have happened.

(Original post by Fizzel)
On this point and the last I doubt you would justify the current behaviour of the Israeli state on grounds of previous experiences of the Jewish people over the last century? You cannot expect them to act in a human manner anymore than members of ISIS, regardless of their victims.
The situations are not similar at all. ISIS are a rogue organisation, the IDF is U.S funded and backed and Netanyahu is a world leader. There's clearly a difference between a terrorist group and a country like Israel breaking U.N laws day in day out with no reprecussions.
0
Depleted
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9608
Report 3 years ago
#9608
1. Gareth Bale (87) – The most expensive player in the world, Gareth Bale (87) didn’t even make the top 20 in this year’s game whilst Cesc Fabregas and Mesut Ozil both did.

2. Harry Kane (78) – Having become the first Tottenham play to net 30 goals in a season since Gary Lineker, Harry Kane (78) was incredibly given a lower rating than Roberto Soldado (79), Emmanuel Adebayor (79) and Erik Lamela (79).

3. Mikel Arteta (81) – The veteran Spanish midfielder made only six Premier League starts for Arsenal last season and the club captain looks set to be nothing more than a bit-part player behind Francis Coquelin this season. Despite all that, EA gave him an upgrade from 80 to 81.

4. Jordan Henderson (79) – Recently made Liverpool captain after another fine season, FIFA 16 front cover star Jordan Henderson is probably mystified that he received a rating of only 79 this year. That’s a lower rating than Tomas Rosicky and Cheick Tiote.

5. Huge Lloris (84) & Michel Vorm (80) – After yet another terrific season at White Hart lane, the highly rated French keeper Hugo Lloris saw his stock drop from 85 to 84 in this year’s game whilst back-up keeper Michel Vorm received an upgrade from 79 to 80.

8. Juan Mata (84) – Recalled to the Spanish national team, the Manchester United midfielder had to prove himself to Louis van Gaal last season and despite doing so has suffered a -1 downgrade from last year’s version.


little_wizard123 Do you ***** even watch football?
0
Fizzel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9609
Report 3 years ago
#9609
(Original post by Pimped Butterfly)
All of them, except attending the marches because I'm not local.
I thought you were a Londoner?

In any case, my personal answers are irrelevant.
You personal actions are 100% relevant to your personal position. I wasn't suggesting no one is doing anything, that would be silly, it was just questioning Depleted's actions as to question to point of 'could do more'. Almost everyone could do more, its when people feel they have done enough or they have done their part, on this issue or multiple other issues. Take sr's position, he's got a job he pays taxes, he pays into the foreign aid budget, he could say he's done enough without having to take in refugees. Could he do more, obviously but people will draw a line eventually. Its not a point meant in an accusatory tone.

You are completely entitled as a member of society to call for society to act. If you do so whilst not acting when it's in your means, then obviously that's irrational and hypocritical and outright insulting but it is still within everyone's rights to call for society to act. Regardless of their personal ability to aid or not. Caring but not acting is regularly the spur for others to act, which is precisely the desired outcome. No doubt it's better to lead by example but it's ridiculous to think that caring in isolation is useless. Not caring at all is inhumane and symptomatic of the disgustingly apathetic country we live in.
I can't see you point being backed up anywhere in there. At best you've said caring in isolation has value because its regularly the spur for others to act, which is just as much case in the reverse. People seeing unaided suffering motivates them to be the one to act. Other than saying caring might cause others to care, which without some form of action I'm not sure how they would know that you care, you've presented nothing to suggest it results in any change in outcome, which is my original point.

You've also from the start presented a false point, I never said anyone was not entitled or had no right to call for society to act, I simply presented the point caring without obligation (present or potential) is worthless, even if that obligation is that you write to your MP to spend some of the taxes you don't pay, its still an action which means more than caring (which is simply a feeling). Links back to the Osbourne point about funding, he's in effect assuring people about any further obligations they may be taking on.

I'd reply to Depleted's in a bit, but I hope from the above you can see you've misunderstood some of my points.
1
little_wizard123
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9610
Report 3 years ago
#9610
(Original post by Depleted)

little_wizard123 Do you ***** even watch football?
I have nothing to do with Spurs, Liverpool or Arsenal. Sorry.
0
little_wizard123
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9611
Report 3 years ago
#9611
(Original post by Depleted)

little_wizard123 Do you ***** even watch football?
Some of those points are **** anyway. So what if Mata played and his rating came down?

It's about constant adjustments. If it was felt that Vorm's ratings were too low, they were brought up. If I felt one rating for a player who hasn't played much was too low and decide to bring it up, it doesn't mean he's suddenly a better player, it's that the ratings didn't fully reflect the player accurately. Makes the Lloris point stupid too. For example, if we decided to suddenly reduce Soldado to make it more in line with what you believe, people would suddenly start saying how Soldado has been massively downgraded without doing anything wrong. It's a lot more complicated.

And half of the other ones compare players in different positions, whatever they were. I've forgotten.

But picking one player and saying he's slightly worse despite having a better rating is always going to be easy to do. Overall ratings are based on a formula that's then based on the players stats. Both of which are subjective. How do you decide the perfect attributes for a particular position and their weighting?

Hardly bad overall if that's all you've got to criticise. Overall ratings are essentially meaningless - pick up on individual ratings like slide tackling or finishing and I'll start listening to you.
0
Rk2k14
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9612
Report 3 years ago
#9612
Lol, people are still happy to fund British people who do **** all but sit on their arses and claim benefits. There was a ****ing show on TV showing the true colours but then when 'immigrants' come, suddenly the NHS is at risk.

Why don't you tell some of these stupid ****s to stop getting boob jobs removed and wasting the NHS's money instead.
0
username917703
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9613
Report 3 years ago
#9613
(Original post by little_wizard123)
I have nothing to do with Spurs, Liverpool or Arsenal. Sorry.
Where can I see all the ratings?
0
Zürich
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9614
Report 3 years ago
#9614
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...ong-jail-terms

wonderful.
0
Tom.x.Gotze
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#9615
Report 3 years ago
#9615

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...2978391&page=1

Aware.
0
little_wizard123
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9616
Report 3 years ago
#9616
(Original post by Wilfred Little)
Where can I see all the ratings?
FUTHEAD.
0
jam277
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9617
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#9617
(Original post by little_wizard123)
Having an important debate with a friend. What percentage of the male population in the UK can do:

A) one pull-up (from hanging, obviously)
B) ten pressups
C) bench their body weight.
A) About 1% if that. You have those slim ass guys who have no body weight to really do that pressup.
B) Surely about 40% of the population. Anybody who's not overweight or with a complete muscle imbalance/mobility disorder.
C) About 5% maybe? I bench just below my bodyweight but I guess smaller/skinnier people have less weight to carry so it could(like with the hanging pullup) be in their advantage.

My boys(one was ripped, the other was skinny with very little muscle mass and fat) did a pullup competition and they were equal to each other.
0
Depleted
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9618
Report 3 years ago
#9618
(Original post by little_wizard123)
Some of those points are **** anyway. So what if Mata played and his rating came down?

It's about constant adjustments. If it was felt that Vorm's ratings were too low, they were brought up. If I felt one rating for a player who hasn't played much was too low and decide to bring it up, it doesn't mean he's suddenly a better player, it's that the ratings didn't fully reflect the player accurately. Makes the Lloris point stupid too. For example, if we decided to suddenly reduce Soldado to make it more in line with what you believe, people would suddenly start saying how Soldado has been massively downgraded without doing anything wrong. It's a lot more complicated.

And half of the other ones compare players in different positions, whatever they were. I've forgotten.

But picking one player and saying he's slightly worse despite having a better rating is always going to be easy to do. Overall ratings are based on a formula that's then based on the players stats. Both of which are subjective. How do you decide the perfect attributes for a particular position and their weighting?

Hardly bad overall if that's all you've got to criticise. Overall ratings are essentially meaningless - pick up on individual ratings like slide tackling or finishing and I'll start listening to you.
Ok, well last season Kane's conversion rate was around 24.7%, whilst Agüero's was 16.23%. Costa's was 26.8%. Kane's finishing is only 82, Agüero's and Costa's are both 90. Why is this? I can excuse Sergio as he took a lot more shots and a lot more long range, but Costa was a poacher inside the box and his conversion rate was marginally higher (and he score 12 less goals last season), so why is it a full 8 higher than Arry's?
0
username917703
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9619
Report 3 years ago
#9619
(Original post by little_wizard123)
FUTHEAD.
Nice one. I'm gonna buy FIFA this year tbh.

Adama's dribbling stat is way too low. Should be 90+
0
little_wizard123
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9620
Report 3 years ago
#9620
(Original post by Depleted)
Ok, well last season Kane's conversion rate was around 24.7%, whilst Agüero's was 16.23%. Costa's was 26.8%. Kane's finishing is only 82, Agüero's and Costa's are both 90. Why is this? I can excuse Sergio as he took a lot more shots and a lot more long range, but Costa was a poacher inside the box and his conversion rate was marginally higher (and he score 12 less goals last season), so why is it a full 8 higher than Arry's?
I'll look into the stats, but it's probably because Aguero and Costa have sustained conversion rates over longer periods of time. Once you're a 90 finisher, you don't suddenly lose those kind of finishing skills so once you're that high you can't just bring it down to 82 or whatever if he had a lower conversion rate the year after.

If he keeps that rate up he'll be a lot higher in the updates this season.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (66)
20%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (133)
40.3%
Nope, not that interesting (131)
39.7%

Watched Threads

View All