Lord Setar
Oh gee I dunno, maybe the rule shouldn't be in place?
Once again, your failure to answer the question shall be interpreted as your concession.
Lord Setar
Dunno. Maybe it's because this rule's existence and application are themselves arbitrarily defined?
You can't assume that it is arbitrarily defined just because it is not the same in every school. It does not need to be the same in ever school.
Do you even know the application? I bet you don't.
Lord Setar
Red herrings for epic fail.
Once again, you fail to respond. Another concession!
How does what I said have nothing to do with what you said?
Lord Setar
In what you did? Very much so.
Explain yourself, son. Note that you are the one riddling your posts with insults, not me.
Lord Setar
Two red herrings in one post? Jesus s**t, are you unable to justify the rule or does the concept of "different situations necessitate different courses of action relative to the given situation" simply elude your nonfunctional cerebrum?
How is it a red herring? You are saying that the difference matters. I am asking you to demonstrate how. You repeatedly keep refusing. Should I take this as your next concession?
I gave you an example of how acts need not be similar to have the same punishment because you keep implying that the fact that the acts are different matters. It doesn't. In that case, we wouldn't have so many crimes with so few punishments. (Note that the word "crime" implies that I am referencing the gov't.)
Lord Setar
Your lack of a functioning central nervous system doesn't constitute irony.
Like I said, you need to quit being sarcastic until you can do it correctly. What you said doesn't even make sense.
Lord Setar
All right, then, I concede that you cannot comprehend the difference between smoking and making a post on Facebook, and thus concede that your cerebral cortex is not functioning at levels that would be considered optimum for a member of
Homo sapien sapiens.
Once again, demonstrate how smoking and making a comment on facebook are significantly different in the eyes of the school rules when they get you the same punishment (regarding the sports team).
This logic, once again, demonstrates how acts need not be similar in order to receive the same punishment. That is where the cheating vs. crack dealing scenario comes to play.
Lord Setar
It's your point, why don't you try explaining it? That is, if you have one...
Hint: Reread this entire thread if you must, because my point is on every page. I don't understand how I have been arguing with you for the longest and you don't know my point.
I stated that, if you want to be on a sport's team, then you need to follow the rules. Plain and simple.
Lord Setar
Is this your standard response to anything your nonfunctional CNS can't comprehend?
Like you telling me that I am shooting myself in the foot instead of actually answering my questions? The situations are still different though. I say "irony" to your sarcastic comments that have no real bearing on your point. You seem to think that "(insert something about shooting yourself in the foot)" is a valid response to questions.
You don't even remember what we were talking about? Really, Setar, why are you still here?
Lord Setar
A hat trick of red herrings deserves a red hat. We were talking about alcohol, not steroids.
No. You were actually talking about illegal substances. The only thing you emphasized is the legal status.
In that case, I have to provide evidence that alcohol consumption affects gameplay?
As for your other comment, you said "see below" and never actually responded to the statement.
Lord Setar
Yes, yes, because obviously when your suboptimal CNS can't comprehend something it means either there's irony or you're right.
I don't understand why you think "You're shooting yourself in the foot" is so incredibly complex. What is there to process? Does it hold the secret to life or something? How does dismissing it as a stupid, worthless comment say anything about my CNS?
Once again, when you fail to answer a question and presume to insult me instead, I can only assume that you did so because you have no actual refute. Is a lack of refute not a sign that a concession is needed?
Lord Setar
Which means that illegal activities took place, thus justifying the course of action. Unless it's illegal to badmouth school administrators, your attempt at an analogy fails.
Once again, what does the legal status have to do with anything? Note that you haven't answered that yet.
Lord Setar
Yes, yes, because an action being legal or illegal is totally irrelevant to how it justifies being kicked off the team.
Sure it does. Correct me if I am wrong (with a quote from the constitution), but I am sure that cheating on a test = expulsion is not in the constitution. However, schools are allowed to expel students who cheat on tests because they have the freedom to make their own rules so long as they don't violate the law.
That means that someone can be kicked off the team for an action that is considered legal or illegal because the school is allowed to make its own rules.
Lord Setar
So the red herrings weren't enough
There were no red herrings.
Lord Setar
and now we're onto sheer intellectual dishonesty, then?
Explain.
Note that, once again, you didn't answer the question.
Lord Setar
Please, explain to me why I should respond to anything you say past this point with anything more than notes about how nonfunctional your central nervous system is.
You haven't thus far. Why start now?
Lord Setar
Please note that you've barely provided any questions for me to answer and that you have just ignored all of the answers I gave up to this point.
I have ignored none of your questions. I answered all of them. Deny that most of your responses consist of some irrelevant and childish assertion about my CNS or shooting myself in the foot. Post one instance of me insulting you instead of answering your question.
I'll wait.
Well, you're not actually going to answer the question, so there really is no point in answering.
The number of questions doesn't matter. Your job is to answer them. Your job is to refute my point. You have failed to do so up until this point.
Lord Setar
Oh, that's right, nonfunctional CNS making you assume that the reason the contract says "no drinking" isn't because the person signing the contract is not of legal drinking age.
I didn't say it had nothing to do with it. I said that's not all it has to do with. But I give you credit. Even though you couldn't do so like a mature individual, you actually answered the question.
Let's take this to college. OP never said it has to take place in HS. Let's assume the players in question are of legal drinking age. I'm pretty sure they're still not allowed to play while under the influence.
Lord Setar
It would be the reason that the state does not allow people over a certain age to participate. Most of their competition would be younger and more than likely less skilled.
What does that have to do with anything? Let's say there are two students on a soccer team. One has been playing since elementary school and the other has been playing since Freshman year. They shouldn't be allowed to play on the same team because the former is likely better than the latter? If everyone is on the same level, then what would be the point of competing?
Lord Setar
Of course, the actual reasoning itself isn't the point of contention, the point of contention is whether or not the limit exists and what the limit itself is. You're just pulling out the fourth red herring of this post.
I don't know what you're talking about here. I hypothesize that it makes no attempt to even address the point.
Once again, you didn't answer the questions.
Lord Setar
Only because your CNS is, as I said, not functioning properly.
Once again, you fail to do what was requested.
Well. You answered one question so far.
