inadaze

quote:

---

One good quality that he has though is that he’s very open-minded and likes to analyze topics from all perspectives.

---

Generally true, but he does not apply that as much in this recent closer alignment with right-wing portions of his audience. And very close alignnent with Elon Musk and the Great.
I've lost some respect for him because of that. All partisan biases aside, Sam Harris has addressed some legitimate issues with Elon on a character level.

The Trouble with Elon

On the religion angle with Rogan, he has always been clear that he is not religious. I know he said that clearly in the podcast with Woody Harrelson. But he talks to enough christians or quasichristians (e.g., Jordan Peterson), that it has resulted in this game that OP is playing where people make links with Rogan and christianity as some kind of hopeful flirtation or something. But it's really nothing more than "openness" and that Rogan tends to stay quiet or say something vaguely supportive oftentimes when he talks to christians and Peterson, who he holds in undeserved high regard.
Part of what's going on here is that the open-mindedness you mentioned gets misread by some. He's a relatively open and diverse person, so he's able to relate to a wide variety of different people and find common ground. Does he hold back criticism and distancing himself because he's aware of this conservative flirtation dynamic? And because much of his newer audience is conservative and religious? Similar to the way he isn't really critical of Elon and the Great, I think that's true to some degree. I prefer the Rogan we got in the Woody Harrelson podcast, but that's just me.
There were a number of people who made solid response videos to Huff's boring episode. It would have been a good gesture openness and balance to give one of those people an episode.

Did Caitlyn commit a flagrant because she's jealous that Angel has so many more Instagram followers? And/or because Angel is widely viewed as more attractive?

I don't. It has flaws in its current form, and some people have problems with it, but I generally like it.

quote:

---

are we not made in the image of God

---

This is the type of thing I despise.
Having christianity as a personal experience is one, thing. Imposing it on everyone else is an annoying other thing.
From my perspective, christianity has a some fundamental similarities to rap music. The language is mostly low-level, generally irritating, mostly about power.
There are differences of course. Rappers are more overt in their egoism, while christians often masquerade it as some kind of socially acceptable piety. And there's only one real OG in christianity. The omnipotent OG who created a game in which countless conscious entities will eventually experience the worst suffering imaginable...forever.
There are a minority of christians who do their thing in a way I'm able to get into. Just as there are some rap songs I like, even though the lyrical content generally isn't good in my view.
I don't really respect the minds of people who really practice a religion that they were indoctrinated with in childhood. In these circumstances, there's usually about as much critical thought that goes into choosing christianity as a religion as goes into choosing English as a first language. I don't necessarily respect the minds of people who moved to another religion, or no religion, either. But at least in those scenarios there's some movement from childhood indoctrination.

The link in OP might just be political wishcasting. I'm seeing Luis Tagle and Pietro Parolin as the favorites ahead of Pizzaballa.

The history of sexual abuse deserves the condemnation it gets. I've definitely taken shots at it over the years. But there are other ways to look at it. In my view, from the outside of Catholicism, I do see more depth and sacredness among the most devout compared to other denominations. That's just my view, but I actually do admire some of it in a sense.
There's a long history of vows of chastity among the most notable figures in Catholicism. So it seems others have attempted to follow in those footsteps. But maybe that's not the life for some percentage of these people. Or maybe there are actually benefits to having a sexual life for some period of time, then taking a vow for religion/spirituality, a la St. Augustine.

The last sentence is referring only to the bad methodology, only for the 1st Round in 2023.

The next link is from a 2018 article.
They cite numbers from The Huddle Report. And again, same flawed methodology. This one says it's from a 5-year window.

quote:

---

In the past five years, based on The Huddle Report data, Kiper has accurately predicted a team’s first-round pick 23 percent of the time; accurately predicted which players will be picked in the first round, regardless of team, 85 percent of the time; and accurately predicted which players will be picked among the top 100, regardless of team, 78 percent of the time.

---

You didn't say "or higher", did you?
The 85% and 78% numbers are arguably more relevant.

So you copied it, parrot.
Cite your source next time.
The first link has problems.
First, it's defining a hit as matching the actual draft position. That does not necessarily constitute a hit or a miss as an evaluation because, as it should be obvious, NFL teams miss too.
That's not what a real hit rate is. Not factual.
The BR article itself is a hit. A hit piece on Mel.
The percentage they use is of a very narrow window from 2005-2008. They call Mel's number "abysmal". But the only numbers they cite as better were from Our Lads and Jay Glazer, who they have as 2.6% and 1% better respectively. But this is essentially irrelevant because the whole methodology for this is a joke.

quote:

---

And he didn’t just make a prediction, he loudly promoted that shite all throughout the draft

---

Good. Let me tell you what that means. It means he's his own man, and he makes his own evaluations. Contrast that with Field Yates, the Gavin Newsom of NFL draft coverage. He backpedaled off his projection (1st Round) immediately. That shows you he's not his own man. He does not have confidence in his own evaluations. He's probably just putting together projections based on the consensus of others.
Is it your belief that Mel should've done what Field did?
Where are the threads on Field? Not very interesting, huh? But evidently Mel caught the attention of many.

And on that unfactual number you posted, one thing we do know is that whatever the real hit rate is, it's a whole lot better than the hit rate for the Colorado/Shedeur haters of the MSB.

Now compile lists of all the draft misses by NFL teams since 1984.
It's easy to criticize someone who puts their neck out there and makes public predictions in the way Kiper does. Easy for chronic complainers to cherry pick misses in trying to portray a negative narrative.
You take that many swings, and you're going to miss at times. There are plenty of times Aaron Judge has struck out this year if you need more misses to complain about.

Regarding Shedeur and ESPN, has it occurred to you that ESPN might realize the obvious fact that covering Shedeur gets ratings? The way the chronic complainers on MSB have consistently posted (failed) about him and Colorado the past few years should've been an indication for you.
I know that doesn't fit with the "conspiracy" and "agenda" narratives that posters like to cling to, but it's actually true.

I actually did mention that, right there in what you quoted.