Why is everyone against us?

I tried to answer that in my post at 10:13 AM on October 31st.

I don’t believe the latter. It sounds like one of those platitudes preached from a pulpit.

:wink:

I’d like to recap before any zapping occurs.

Reasons put forward for the universal bias against Tiger-Cats:

  1. other markets are favoured because they need help to shore up fan support
  2. too much black in our uniforms
  3. they all resent how cool “The Hammer” sounds
  4. they resent how good we used to be in the 1950s-60s (i.e. before many of the current decision-makers were even born)
  5. we are possibly out of favour with a deity, for unexplained reasons
  6. it might just be our own perception that everyone is against us, rather than objective reality
  7. inside job, with our own coaches being part of the anti-Ticat conspiracy (I’m thinking that suggestion was made in jest)
  1. People aren’t wearing enough hats (Monty Python reference - please disregard)

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the numerous references to men’s private parts are not serious contenders for explaining the phenomenon under discussion.

Now if I may, I’d like to propose an idea that ties together #'s 5 and 6 above, as well as most of the recent posts on the tangential topic.

Sometimes people create an idea in their minds that makes them feel better about the world, even though there is really no evidence that the idea is real. Believers will continue to believe, as the lack of evidence somehow reassures them that their idea is that much stronger because, after all, it proves they have faith. Faith can be seen as a substitute for reason or proof, and is therefore unlikely to be shaken by any logical arguments. Sometimes you just know what you know, and that’s all there is to it.

My vote is for explanation #6.

:wink:

Mine as well

Might be #6, as long as that includes and explains the cohort of self proclaimed Ti-Cat fans who keep posting snarky anti Ti-Cat comments about the team ownership, executive, coaches, and/or players (you know who you are!). If not, I’d lean towards #8. :wink:

Which God? Well since Balticfox referenced the Bible I assumed this was from the Abrahamic perspective. However, keep in mind Sikhism and Hinduism believe in one God as well.

The universe left to unfold free of any supernatural forces? I still don’t understand what you define nature to be. Are you saying the physical world is nature? And if it is influenced then it ceases to be nature? Nature you said is the greater good, however, it is full of suffering, so how can it be the greatest good?

Nature can still be nature even if it is manipulated by a higher power at times, remember nature is Gods creation, therefore, can be under his will. Try not to put limits on God.

"we don’t understand gods ways is a pathetic copt-out? Maybe in your opinion, however, God is far beyond our comprehension. We can’t possibly understand his ways. Love is possible for free moral creatures, so in order for a world to be morally good, it must be morally free. And free creatures are capable of free choices. Some of those choices aren’t always the best ones.

Maybe it is a result of the negative energy produced by us fans. We expect bias so bias ia generated. AfterW to do the same - so they did.

I’ve heard this many times from outsiders but many think Hamilton is a shithole. The most flattering thing I’ve heard is Lunch Bucket Town. Many who have never explored the city think it is some kind of dark, dirty, crime-ridden dystopia. Probably due to its steel mills and industrial heritage. The image might be slowly changing with Hamiltons major employer now being Health Sciences. But many Canadians still have a negative perception of our city.

not me. not even when I lived in Toronto.

always liked the name.

No. The more modern Aquinian concept of the all-perfect, all-powerful, all-good, all-loving God. Anything else/less just isn’t “God” and isn’t fit to worship.

The jealous, angry, vengeful Yahweh revealed in the Old Testament is just one of the silly multifold national deities they had in the Middle East at the time and doesn’t fit the modern concept of God which entails perfection.

The universe left to unfold free of any supernatural forces? I still don't understand what you define nature to be. Are you saying the physical world is nature?
Yes. Nature = Physical World = Universe
And if it is influenced then it ceases to be nature?
Yes. The same way that a tiger kept in a cage and given three square meals a day is no longer a manifestation of nature.
Nature can still be nature even if it is manipulated by a higher power at times....
No. [i]Any[/i] intervention constitutes compromising nature.
Nature you said is the greater good, however, it is full of suffering, so how can it be the greatest good?
Because decay is a necessary part of the process through which nature regenerates itself. This unfortunately involves suffering. Pain is nature's warning that something is eating you or something is in some other way wrong and you better do something about it if you want to survive.

But why are you attempting to undermine the concept of “nature as the greater good” anyway? Don’t you realize that by rejecting that concept you’re eliminating the only answer to the problem that the existence of pain, suffering and misfortune creates for the existence of (a perfect) God?

Nature can still be nature even if it is manipulated by a higher power at times, remember nature is Gods creation, therefore, can be under his will. Try not to put limits on God.
You're therefore raising the question of why an all-perfect, all-powerful God ever needs to manipulate or intervene in nature. Why didn't he get it "right" in the first place? If he'd done it right in the first place, no further action on his part would be required. You're thus lending credence to the argument that God doesn't exist because of this inherent contradiction.
"We don't understand gods ways is a pathetic cop-out?" Maybe in your opinion, however, God is far beyond our comprehension. We can't possibly understand his ways.
So you're saying "It doesn't matter if things make sense to you or not. Just believe." Sorry. That argument doesn't wash with a rational man.

::slight_smile:

What is happening in here?

How in God’s name has this thread not been locked yet ?

Not hosting a Cup Final since 1996 is just a travesty and an embarrassment to our city and our fans !

Haha-have you actually read the old testament?

Sorry I still don’t understand. So because a Tiger is in a cage it no longer becomes a Tiger? So if a human is locked in a cage, he/she becomes less human?

So in your opinion, the greatestgood is full of decay and suffering? The greatest good is the physical world?Correct?

If you create something do you not want to be involved with it? Also, suffering comes from the fact that the world has free will and is imperfect.

How do you define a rational human?

One Cup in 48 years, in 9 team league. That’s godly interference!

I really question your comprehension. You routinely state this absurd falsehood, even when the correct information is presented to you.

We hosted the GC in 1972 and won it on home turf - FACT!
We hosted the GC in 1996 (EDM vs TOR) - FACT!
2018-1972= 46. FACT!
GC wins in that period: 1972, 1986, 1999 - FACT!

What is so hard to understand?

Not me. Those other Canadians don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re neither knowledgeable naturalists nor economists.

Hamilton is spectacularly scenic geographically. Multiple streams tumble over the Niagara Escarpment along which Hamilton is built thus creating high magnificent waterfalls. The city is nestled up against a massive wetland named Coote’s Paradise and has the best and most scenic natural harbour on Lake Ontario.

Hence the industry. But an industrial manufacturing base is not only indicative of vibrancy, but has a far greater multiplier effect when it comes to job creation than do service businesses. It takes a clueless hippie flower child to eschew industry.

Well said Balticfox! Maybe you had to grow up in Hamilton, have family members or know others who worked the mills and the industries along Burlington Street to understand, and to know the pride that they took in being a part of a manufacturing heartland. Good jobs and a prosperous future for their families.

Don’t care what other say, I still take pride in being a small part of that history and tradition.

Why are you laughing? Are you implying that the dusty old tome is just a joke from start to finish?

But no, I’ve not read it all from cover-to-cover. Just certain parts whenever I’ve needed to consult something specific.

The traditional way:

Incidentally have you ever read any parts of a dictionary? They can be useful you know.

I said nothing of that sort (and you know it). What I said very specifically was that a caged tiger would not be a “manifestation of nature”, meaning an example of or indicative of nature.

What I actually said was that nature is the greater good, greater than any specific instance of nature in action.

I am however also tempted to say that nature is the greatest good. After all, without the physical world there would be no existence. And me I’m opposed to not existing.

With respect to decay, that lays the groundwork for regeneration without which nature could neither replenish itself nor achieve full flower. Unfortunately decay usually involves suffering. Like I say, pain is nature’s mechanism to tell living entities that something is very wrong and serious action must be taken.

I don’t know of any way for nature/life to exist without pain. Sadly it’s a necessary condition for life.

Well I would, but nobody ever said I was by definition perfect. Therefore my subsequently acting upon one of my creations doesn’t automatically raise the question of why I didn’t do it right in the first place and am therefore now required to act upon it. Neither does it raise the question of why I’m acting on a certain specific creation as opposed to any other since I’m not thought to be all-good, all-loving or all-just.

Outright nonsense! Who told you that? And why would you believe let alone repeat such a preposterous claim?

First of all, the world has no will. It’s just an insignificant mudball in a minor galaxy that’s fortuitously teeming with life including us hairless apes.

Secondly while we hairless apes have free will, tell the babies, puppies, kittens, rabbits, etc. that their agonized suffering in for example a fire is as a result of their misuse of free will.

Thirdly how can a perfect God create an imperfect world/nature? How can the creation of a perfect being be anything other than perfect? This would imply that God does not exist, and never did.

And once again, I’m not talking about man and free will here, I’m talking about the physical Universe which involves decay, suffering and pain. Or are you willing to concede that these things are necessary in the physical Universe and are therefore not an imperfection?

Fourthly you’re in effect conflating the problem of evil with the problem of pain. The first is easy to explain and dismiss; the latter is not.

But since you’re asking me all these questions, here are a few of my own for you to answer:

  1. What are you trying to accomplish with your efforts to undermine the argument that “Nature is the greater good and must be left to run its course.” Is it your intention to agree that the existence of pain and suffering implies that there is no God?

  2. Are you arguing for a certain set belief system? Would that be Christianity by any chance? If so you’re not being a very good ambassador for your belief system by deliberately misrepresenting my statements and asking me asinine questions such as the meaning of the word “rational”.

???

I actually did none of those things. But I understand economics, and I understand that economies are built upon production. Any economy is built upon somebody somewhere actually getting out and making (or at least repairing) useful products.

:slight_smile: