Who's Better - Today's Stars or Yesteryear's Stars?

[Orion Bailey]

No, I'm saying that logic tells us; that there has not been a genetic mutation causing people all over the world to be born less talented basketball players.

And you read in Medical Monthly that here has been a mutation to make us better?

You know what Logic tells me?

Logic tells me that we have excelled at using our minds and have created machines to do the bulk of things we used to do physically ourselves. So as genes are passed down from parent to child, we are losing some of our physical gifts at birth because life has become physically easier. Why do people need to go to the gym to stay in shape now?
When we never had to prior to a few decades ago?

Life has become easier for humans physically so natural logic says we are becoming weaker... which translates to less talent at birth....

Again. I'm not going to call you a fucking idiot if you disagree with me though.... That's the point of contention you must come to learn. Its okay to agree to disagree without having to hate on anything or anyone....

 

[Orion Bailey]

You still have no response to my answer of your question?

Huh?

Do all answers require a response when conversing? I've answered everything I felt was relevant.

I don't even know what your asking . Unless you just lost the rational convo and are back to playing games again. Of which ill gladly start ignoring you again..

 

[Nate]

And you read in Medical Monthly that here has been a mutation to make us better?

You know what Logic tells me?

Logic tells me that we have excelled at using our minds and have created machines to do the bulk of things we used to do physically ourselves. So as genes are passed down from parent to child, we are losing some of our physical gifts at birth because life has become physically easier. Why do people need to go to the gym to stay in shape now?
When we never had to prior to a few decades ago?

Life has become easier for humans physically so natural logic says we are becoming weaker... which translates to less talent at birth....

Again. I'm not going to call you a fucking idiot if you disagree with me though.... That's the point of contention you must come to learn. Its okay to agree to disagree without having to hate on anything or anyone....

Omg for the last fucking time..... I never said people are more talented today. Ever. I never said that. I said they're just as good.

 

[H.C.]

When did I ever argue that they're better today? They're just as good. That's all I'm saying.

Please read my post again. I'm not going to repeat myself sorry.

 

[Nate]

And you read in Medical Monthly that here has been a mutation to make us better?

You know what Logic tells me?

Logic tells me that we have excelled at using our minds and have created machines to do the bulk of things we used to do physically ourselves. So as genes are passed down from parent to child, we are losing some of our physical gifts at birth because life has become physically easier. Why do people need to go to the gym to stay in shape now?
When we never had to prior to a few decades ago?

Life has become easier for humans physically so natural logic says we are becoming weaker... which translates to less talent at birth....

Again. I'm not going to call you a fucking idiot if you disagree with me though.... That's the point of contention you must come to learn. Its okay to agree to disagree without having to hate on anything or anyone....

Less talent at birth? Are you serious right now? Lol.

 

[Nate]

Please read my post again. I'm not going to repeat myself sorry.

I wasn't asking you to do anything. It was a rhetorical question. You have a hard time believing that today's stars are better than stars in be past. Cool. Me too. I never said they were.
They're just as good though.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Omg for the last fucking time..... I never said people are more talented today. Ever. I never said that. I said they're just as good.

OMG for the last fucking time. No one said you said they are more talented. You are asking for evidence based on medical facts. Im asking you for the same to prove that there hasnt been a decline or anything else.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Less talent at birth? Are you serious right now? Lol.

Obviously your not... so have a day...

 

[Nate]

OMG for the last fucking time. No one said you said they are more talented. You are asking for evidence based on medical facts. Im asking you for the same to prove that there hasnt been a decline or anything else.

That's like saying, "prove to me that Asians aren't born good at math!" I don't need to prove it. The argument is fucking retarded.

 

[Nate]

OMG for the last fucking time. No one said you said they are more talented. You are asking for evidence based on medical facts. Im asking you for the same to prove that there hasnt been a decline or anything else.

You told me to prove they were better.... Implying that you think I said they are...

 

[Orion Bailey]

That's like saying, "prove to me that Asians aren't born good at math!" I don't need to prove it. The argument is fucking retarded.

Not that I care, but that is a racist statement. and is also a direct conflict to what your argueing.

You cant generalize like that in such a large... you know what... nevermind. Not worth the time because your not able to converse rationally.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Not that I care, but that is a racist statement. and is also a direct conflict to what your argueing.

You cant generalize like that in such a large... you know what... nevermind. Not worth the time because your not able to converse rationally.

You might have misread him. The racist claim would be someone saying "Asians are born good at math". Said claimant might respond to someone disagreeing with him, "Well, prove to me that they aren't!" Nate is saying that it's not necessary to provide such proof, because the initial claim is in and of itself ridiculous without needing any evidence.

And I believe that his point is that the suggestion that the current crop of NBA players were born with less natural athletic talent than the crop that was around 30 years ago is similarly ridiculous, especially given the easily measurable performance improvements that can be seen across the sports landscape over that same period.

 

[Nate]

You might have misread him. The racist claim would be someone saying "Asians are born good at math". Said claimant might respond to someone disagreeing with him, "Well, prove to me that they aren't!" Nate is saying that it's not necessary to provide such proof, because the initial claim is in and of itself ridiculous without needing any evidence.

And I believe that his point is that the suggestion that the current crop of NBA players were born with less natural athletic talent than the crop that was around 30 years ago is similarly ridiculous, especially given the easily measurable performance improvements that can be seen across the sports landscape over that same period.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Orion Bailey]

You might have misread him. The racist claim would be someone saying "Asians are born good at math". Said claimant might respond to someone disagreeing with him, "Well, prove to me that they aren't!" Nate is saying that it's not necessary to provide such proof, because the initial claim is in and of itself ridiculous without needing any evidence.

Ahhh you could be right, but then isn't that a direct contradiction on all accounts for any generation of basketball?
He is saying the players are the same now and were no better then, and I'm saying prove it. Just like he is saying to prove it when I say they are better then compared to now. Doesn't that arguement go both ways? I mean doesn't it HAVE to go both ways or its just another ignorant statement meant to keep the bantering going without any rationality within ones' posts?

 

[Orion Bailey]

You're supposed to see the devilwink and understand the sarcasm.

However, I didn't read his post that way at all. I read it as not relating to agreeing with his opinion, but relating to the method of arriving at an opinion. He has no problem with people disagreeing with him, if they don't intentionally disregard logic in the process.

The problem is his LOGIC is still an opinion. I posted my logic about physical life being easier now than in prior decades. Its logical. It makes sense. We are lazier as a race than we ever have been in history, so its logical to think that our muscle mass has deteriorated, even if of the slimmest percentages. This is absolutely logical. And he asked it I was serious. He is not logical so thus insulted everyone who disagreed with him in the process..

Again, I don't care, but I will not accept a wrong as a right.

I will not accept someone telling me to be logical in the face of their ignorance. They will get a rebuttal until they prove they are unable to hold a mature conversation. Of which I default to two things. Stooping to ones level or ignoring. I stooped for a bit. Now I'm onto ignoring again, lo..

 

[Strenuus]

The problem is his LOGIC is still an opinion. I posted my logic about physical life being easier now than in prior decades. Its logical. It makes sense. We are lazier as a race than we ever have been in history, so its logical to think that our muscle mass has deteriorated, even if of the slimmest percentages. This is absolutely logical. And he asked it I was serious. He is not logical so thus insulted everyone who disagreed with him in the process..

Again, I don't care, but I will not accept a wrong as a right.

I will not accept someone telling me to be logical in the face of their ignorance. They will get a rebuttal until they prove they are unable to hold a mature conversation. Of which I default to two things. Stooping to ones level or ignoring. I stooped for a bit. Now I'm onto ignoring again, lo..

In the post you're talking about, he never insulted. Just sayin'.

The post you are talking about was a generalization of a different subject on page 1 or 2.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Ahhh you could be right, but then isn't that a direct contradiction on all accounts for any generation of basketball?
He is saying the players are the same now and were no better then, and I'm saying prove it. Just like he is saying to prove it when I say they are better then compared to now. Doesn't that arguement go both ways? I mean doesn't it HAVE to go both ways or its just another ignorant statement meant to keep the bantering going without any rationality within ones' posts?

It seems to me that the rational assumption--given the evidence of gradual athletic improvement in all other endeavors--would be that the NBA talent pool as a whole would get better over time, especially given the increase in the overall talent pool due to general population increase as well as international expansion. Therefore, the onus would be on the contradiction to the rational assumption, ie, that the players in the past were better than the players now. Unless of course you have some basic reasoning that would counter the validity of the rational assumption itself.

 

[Orion Bailey]

And that proves nothing...

And here is Nate insinuating we need to prove something, Of which he later says its ridiculous to try to prove... What an oxymoron of convoluted events....

I think someone doesn't realize what they are saying... Or has forgot or something...

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The problem is his LOGIC is still an opinion. I posted my logic about physical life being easier now than in prior decades. Its logical. It makes sense. We are lazier as a race than we ever have been in history, so its logical to think that our muscle mass has deteriorated, even if of the slimmest percentages. This is absolutely logical. And he asked it I was serious. He is not logical so thus insulted everyone who disagreed with him in the process..

Again, I don't care, but I will not accept a wrong as a right.

I will not accept someone telling me to be logical in the face of their ignorance. They will get a rebuttal until they prove they are unable to hold a mature conversation. Of which I default to two things. Stooping to ones level or ignoring. I stooped for a bit. Now I'm onto ignoring again, lo..

My counter to your claim would be that we have been getting lazier as a race for well over 100 years (since the Industrial Revolution), yet athletic performance has been improving and increasing throughout that same time period. Your logical claim is actually illogical in light of the greater context.

 

[Orion Bailey]

It seems to me that the rational assumption--given the evidence of gradual athletic improvement in all other endeavors--would be that the NBA talent pool as a whole would get better over time, especially given the increase in the overall talent pool due to general population increase as well as international expansion. Therefore, the onus would be on the contradiction to the rational assumption, ie, that the players in the past were better than the players now. Unless of course you have some basic reasoning that would counter the validity of the rational assumption itself.

Here is my contradiction and its based on facts... not opinion. But it has helped to form my opinion, but I must be a fucking idiot for having it....

Obesity Rates: Then And Now
Approximately 10 percent of U.S. adults were classified as obese during the 1950s. In 2011 to 2012, however, the CDC reported approximately 35 percent of U.S. adults were obese; the prevalence of obesity among American adults has more than tripled within the last six decades.

National surveys of childhood obesity weren't recorded before 1963; however, the rate of childhood obesity in the U.S. began to rise in the 1980s. In 1980, 7 percent of children ages 6 to 11 were obese; in 2012, the rate was nearly 18 percent. In adolescents –12 to 19 years of age– the increase in obesity rates was more striking, climbing from 5 to 21 percent during the same period.

This is based off a study.

 

[Orion Bailey]

My counter to your claim would be that we have been getting lazier as a race for well over 100 years (since the Industrial Revolution), yet athletic performance has been improving and increasing throughout that same time period. Your logical claim is actually illogical in light of the greater context.

And that is something I didn't think of. Thanks that. Still doesn't make me or anyone an idiot for not thinking of this or disagreeing if I did.
I did post a rebuttal to your rebuttal based off child obesity though.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Also, both the "lazy race" and "childhood obesity" factors relate more to the overall population rather than to elite athletes. If you have similar studies showing reductions in muscle mass or bone density, or increases in body fat of elite athletes, then those would be more relevant to the conversation.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Also, both the "lazy race" and "childhood obesity" factors relate more to the overall population rather than to elite athletes. If you have similar studies showing reductions in muscle mass or bone density, or increases in body fat of elite athletes, then those might actually be relevant to the conversation.

Im at work. I cant do an extensive search. I just click on the first link on google. lol.

 

[Strenuus]

It seems to me that the rational assumption--given the evidence of gradual athletic improvement in all other endeavors--would be that the NBA talent pool as a whole would get better over time, especially given the increase in the overall talent pool due to general population increase as well as international expansion. Therefore, the onus would be on the contradiction to the rational assumption, ie, that the players in the past were better than the players now. Unless of course you have some basic reasoning that would counter the validity of the rational assumption itself.

Bout as good as you can say it.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Im at work. I cant do an extensive search. I just click on the first link on google. lol.

Hey, I appreciate the effort and the conversation. I'm all about rational discourse, as you can see by my effort to return this thread thereto.

 

[Strenuus]

Here is my contradiction and its based on facts... not opinion. But it has helped to form my opinion, but I must be a fucking idiot for having it....

Obesity Rates: Then And Now
Approximately 10 percent of U.S. adults were classified as obese during the 1950s. In 2011 to 2012, however, the CDC reported approximately 35 percent of U.S. adults were obese; the prevalence of obesity among American adults has more than tripled within the last six decades.

National surveys of childhood obesity weren't recorded before 1963; however, the rate of childhood obesity in the U.S. began to rise in the 1980s. In 1980, 7 percent of children ages 6 to 11 were obese; in 2012, the rate was nearly 18 percent. In adolescents –12 to 19 years of age– the increase in obesity rates was more striking, climbing from 5 to 21 percent during the same period.

This is based off a study.

Whenever I look at a study, the first thing I want to see is the sample size. If the sample size is too small, I don't find it valid, IMO.

(my usual is < 1,000 I throw it out).

Do you have a link to this?

 

[Orion Bailey]

Whenever I look at a study, the first thing I want to see is the sample size. If the sample size is too small, I don't find it valid, IMO.

(my usual is < 1,000 I throw it out).

Do you have a link to this?

http://www.livestrong.com/article/384722-how-much-have-obesity-rates-risen-since-1950/

 

[Strenuus]

http://www.livestrong.com/article/384722-how-much-have-obesity-rates-risen-since-1950/

They didn't link a survey, nor do a survey... I don't find it credible. I've seen amazing surveys that I was like "WOW, this has to be true" to then see that they surveyed 70 people.

 

[Orion Bailey]

They didn't link a survey, nor do a survey... I don't find it credible. I've seen amazing surveys that I was like "WOW, this has to be true" to then see that they surveyed 70 people.

Ill do more research tonight. I'm fairly confident its a valid study and at least in America, we have become more obese and have more body fat on average. At birth? I don't know, but soon after?... pretty sure its valid.

 

[Strenuus]

Ill do more research tonight. I'm fairly confident its a valid study and at least in America, we have become more obese and have more body fat on average. At birth? I don't know, but soon after?... pretty sure its valid.

I'm not saying it's not valid, I just like to make sure the studies are getting more of the majority, rather than a small group of people that could skew to help them.

Thanks Stats class. lol.