gibson wrote:Most sports Americans like are objectively superior to soccer, even baseball and hockey.
lol baseball is like the worst sport I can think of after bowls and cricket. Soccer/Basketball/Tennis are world sports. Even Waterpolo which you american scoff at is played in all of Europe and most of the world. (Serbia is the best country in the world at waterpolo, just throwing that out there).
How could you possibly think cricket is worse than baseball????
Because Cricket sucks; - Every 2nd guy has a dad bod and don't even look atheltic - It's played by like 5 fucking countries - Incredibly boring to watch - A single game can go over the course of several days (which is just bs) - I could actually watch a baseball game, but I wouldn't watch a Cricket game even if someone payed me to do so.
Cricket routinely ranks in the top 3 sports in the world by viewership popularity. (1)(2)
2.5 billion people vs an over-opinionated 15 year old from Queensland? Wonder who I will go with?
That's because India has 1.2 billion people you idiot. You don't look at by population but rather by countries. Europe has 750 million all together and 51 countries. So if China invents a sport tomorrow called (insert name) and everyone play it (1.3 million) that sport will be bigger than say a sport which all of Europe plays. There's the logic that your using, very dumb for a person that went to a "top university"
Why would everybody play a sport that "sucks", just because their country "invented" it (India didn't invent cricket, and even if it did and your logic makes sense, you have another 1.4 billion people to account for).
I never said India invented Cricket, learn to read. Bangladesh, Pakistan, SriLanka, South Africa, Australia, England. These are literally the only other countries that play this shit sport.
You still haven't explained why number of countries is a better metric than number of people.
So if there is a sport lets say called (1), and all of Europe plays that sport, 51 countries, 51 cultures, 51 differne't kind of people. And there is a different sport called (2), that only India plays but there is say 1 billion people that play this sport. I wouldn't consider that sport to be "bigger", or "larger" by any means. Even if more people play it. Because it's only 1 country, 1 kind of people. No competition aswell ofc. That's kind of how it is with cricket seeing has India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh make up about 70% of the people who play Cricket. Not only this but Cricket is just so dull and boring to watch. It's not your fault, you probably have some bogan father that grew up watching Cricket, and thus you did too. It's like a culture thing so I understand why you go defensive about it.
gibson wrote:Most sports Americans like are objectively superior to soccer, even baseball and hockey.
lol baseball is like the worst sport I can think of after bowls and cricket. Soccer/Basketball/Tennis are world sports. Even Waterpolo which you american scoff at is played in all of Europe and most of the world. (Serbia is the best country in the world at waterpolo, just throwing that out there).
How could you possibly think cricket is worse than baseball????
Because Cricket sucks; - Every 2nd guy has a dad bod and don't even look atheltic - It's played by like 5 fucking countries - Incredibly boring to watch - A single game can go over the course of several days (which is just bs) - I could actually watch a baseball game, but I wouldn't watch a Cricket game even if someone payed me to do so.
Cricket routinely ranks in the top 3 sports in the world by viewership popularity. (1)(2)
2.5 billion people vs an over-opinionated 15 year old from Queensland? Wonder who I will go with?
That's because India has 1.2 billion people you idiot. You don't look at by population but rather by countries. Europe has 750 million all together and 51 countries. So if China invents a sport tomorrow called (insert name) and everyone play it (1.3 million) that sport will be bigger than say a sport which all of Europe plays. There's the logic that your using, very dumb for a person that went to a "top university"
Why would everybody play a sport that "sucks", just because their country "invented" it (India didn't invent cricket, and even if it did and your logic makes sense, you have another 1.4 billion people to account for).
I never said India invented Cricket, learn to read. Bangladesh, Pakistan, SriLanka, South Africa, Australia, England. These are literally the only other countries that play this shit sport.
You still haven't explained why number of countries is a better metric than number of people.
So if there is a sport lets say called (1), and all of Europe plays that sport, 51 countries, 51 cultures, 51 differne't kind of people. And there is a different sport called (2), that only India plays but there is say 1 billion people that play this sport. I wouldn't consider that sport to be "bigger", or "larger" by any means. Even if more people play it. Because it's only 1 country, 1 kind of people. No competition aswell ofc. That's kind of how it is with cricket seeing has India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh make up about 70% of the people who play Cricket. Not only this but Cricket is just so dull and boring to watch. It's not your fault, you probably have some bogan father that grew up watching Cricket, and thus you did too. It's like a culture thing so I understand why you go defensive about it.
India is a very culturally diverse country, similar to Europe. Different religions, different languages, different culture and practices. Limiting yourself to - at times - arbitrary political borders ignores the cultural similaries / differences that occur within a region. In that measure, I think it would be very interesting to look at cultural diversity in India versus Europe (it may not be as different as you think).
I, personally, don't watch cricket, but I don't presume to tell people what sport is "better" than others when people have subjective preferences for the games they play. It's about as silly as going on a rant about how chocolate is better than vanilla.
Unless you can put together a comprehensive framework as to what makes a sport "good", and then get everybody in the world to agree to it, you're opinion is pretty meaningless.
No competition with 1 billion people playing a sport EleGiggle everyone in india is the same culture EleGiggle number of people playing a sport doesnt determine how big it is EleGiggle
gibson wrote:Most sports Americans like are objectively superior to soccer, even baseball and hockey.
lol baseball is like the worst sport I can think of after bowls and cricket. Soccer/Basketball/Tennis are world sports. Even Waterpolo which you american scoff at is played in all of Europe and most of the world. (Serbia is the best country in the world at waterpolo, just throwing that out there).
How could you possibly think cricket is worse than baseball????
Because Cricket sucks; - Every 2nd guy has a dad bod and don't even look atheltic - It's played by like 5 fucking countries - Incredibly boring to watch - A single game can go over the course of several days (which is just bs) - I could actually watch a baseball game, but I wouldn't watch a Cricket game even if someone payed me to do so.
Cricket routinely ranks in the top 3 sports in the world by viewership popularity. (1)(2)
2.5 billion people vs an over-opinionated 15 year old from Queensland? Wonder who I will go with?
That's because India has 1.2 billion people you idiot. You don't look at by population but rather by countries. Europe has 750 million all together and 51 countries. So if China invents a sport tomorrow called (insert name) and everyone play it (1.3 million) that sport will be bigger than say a sport which all of Europe plays. There's the logic that your using, very dumb for a person that went to a "top university"
Why would everybody play a sport that "sucks", just because their country "invented" it (India didn't invent cricket, and even if it did and your logic makes sense, you have another 1.4 billion people to account for).
I never said India invented Cricket, learn to read. Bangladesh, Pakistan, SriLanka, South Africa, Australia, England. These are literally the only other countries that play this shit sport.
You still haven't explained why number of countries is a better metric than number of people.
So if there is a sport lets say called (1), and all of Europe plays that sport, 51 countries, 51 cultures, 51 differne't kind of people. And there is a different sport called (2), that only India plays but there is say 1 billion people that play this sport. I wouldn't consider that sport to be "bigger", or "larger" by any means. Even if more people play it. Because it's only 1 country, 1 kind of people. No competition aswell ofc. That's kind of how it is with cricket seeing has India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh make up about 70% of the people who play Cricket. Not only this but Cricket is just so dull and boring to watch. It's not your fault, you probably have some bogan father that grew up watching Cricket, and thus you did too. It's like a culture thing so I understand why you go defensive about it.
India is a very culturally diverse country, similar to Europe. Different religions, different languages, different culture and practices.
I, personally, don't watch cricket, but I don't presume to tell people what sport is "better" than others when people have subjective preferences for the games they play. It's about as silly as going on a rant about how chocolate is better than vanilla.
Unless you can put together a comprehensive framework as to what makes a sport "good", and then get everybody in the world to agree to it, you're opinion is pretty meaningless.
They are still all Indians, same people. Religion doesn't define your ethnicity, are you sure you finished uni man? FIBA World Cup had an audience of only 800 million. Nothing in comparison to 2.5billion that Cricket hosts. But are you seriously going to argue that Cricket is a larger/better/ more played sport. No way, because 171 countries play Basketball and only <8 or so play cricket.
gibson wrote:No competition with 1 billion people playing a sport EleGiggle everyone in india is the same culture EleGiggle number of people playing a sport doesnt determine how big it is EleGiggle
India can't compete amongst themselves..........., that would be hilarious.
Yea since there are no imaginary lines in India they are all the same. If we just decided to put imaginary lines in the country though and divided it up into like 20 countries like Europe they would be different and culturally diverse
gibson wrote:No competition with 1 billion people playing a sport EleGiggle everyone in india is the same culture EleGiggle number of people playing a sport doesnt determine how big it is EleGiggle
India can't compete amongst themselves..........., that would be hilarious.
yea its impossible to compete against someone who comes from inside the same imaginary lines as you do!
gibson wrote:Yea since there are no imaginary lines in India they are all the same. If we just decided to put imaginary lines in the country though and divided it up into like 20 countries like Europe they would be different and culturally diverse
NO BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL THE SAME PEOPLE JESUS. Italians and Slavs aren't the same people at all it has nothing to do with religion.
I was going to try to explain to sirmusket that just because someone comes from inside the same imaginary lines as someone else doesnt mean they come from the same culture, but then I remembered he has an iq of 1 and is racist to boot so theres no point.
I was going to try to explain to sirmusket that just because someone comes from inside the same imaginary lines as someone else doesnt mean they come from the same culture, but then I remembered he has an iq of 1 and is racist to boot so theres no point.
lol just learn to write normal atleast then try make a reasoned argument. What in the world are these "Imaginary lines" you're talking about. They are called borders, to distinguish difference countries/people/races.
They are arguing that Cricket is more superior to Baseball, damn Australians.
Well Cricket is more superior. That's why I'm surprised.
Yea it probably is seeing as only America plays Baseball, but still Cricket is 10x more boring. Was arguing that it's countries that define a sports popularity not amount of people. Because India alone covers 1/5th of the worlds population.
gibson wrote:Most sports Americans like are objectively superior to soccer, even baseball and hockey.
lol baseball is like the worst sport I can think of after bowls and cricket. Soccer/Basketball/Tennis are world sports. Even Waterpolo which you american scoff at is played in all of Europe and most of the world. (Serbia is the best country in the world at waterpolo, just throwing that out there).
How could you possibly think cricket is worse than baseball????
Because Cricket sucks; - Every 2nd guy has a dad bod and don't even look atheltic - It's played by like 5 fucking countries - Incredibly boring to watch - A single game can go over the course of several days (which is just bs) - I could actually watch a baseball game, but I wouldn't watch a Cricket game even if someone payed me to do so.
Cricket routinely ranks in the top 3 sports in the world by viewership popularity. (1)(2)
2.5 billion people vs an over-opinionated 15 year old from Queensland? Wonder who I will go with?
That's because India has 1.2 billion people you idiot. You don't look at by population but rather by countries. Europe has 750 million all together and 51 countries. So if China invents a sport tomorrow called (insert name) and everyone play it (1.3 million) that sport will be bigger than say a sport which all of Europe plays. There's the logic that your using, very dumb for a person that went to a "top university"
Why would everybody play a sport that "sucks", just because their country "invented" it (India didn't invent cricket, and even if it did and your logic makes sense, you have another 1.4 billion people to account for).
I never said India invented Cricket, learn to read. Bangladesh, Pakistan, SriLanka, South Africa, Australia, England. These are literally the only other countries that play this shit sport.
You still haven't explained why number of countries is a better metric than number of people.
So if there is a sport lets say called (1), and all of Europe plays that sport, 51 countries, 51 cultures, 51 differne't kind of people. And there is a different sport called (2), that only India plays but there is say 1 billion people that play this sport. I wouldn't consider that sport to be "bigger", or "larger" by any means. Even if more people play it. Because it's only 1 country, 1 kind of people. No competition aswell ofc. That's kind of how it is with cricket seeing has India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh make up about 70% of the people who play Cricket. Not only this but Cricket is just so dull and boring to watch. It's not your fault, you probably have some bogan father that grew up watching Cricket, and thus you did too. It's like a culture thing so I understand why you go defensive about it.
India is a very culturally diverse country, similar to Europe. Different religions, different languages, different culture and practices.
I, personally, don't watch cricket, but I don't presume to tell people what sport is "better" than others when people have subjective preferences for the games they play. It's about as silly as going on a rant about how chocolate is better than vanilla.
Unless you can put together a comprehensive framework as to what makes a sport "good", and then get everybody in the world to agree to it, you're opinion is pretty meaningless.
They are still all Indians, same people. Religion doesn't define your ethnicity, are you sure you finished uni man? FIBA World Cup had an audience of only 800 million. Nothing in comparison to 2.5billion that Cricket hosts. But are you seriously going to argue that Cricket is a larger/better/ more played sport. No way, because 171 countries play Basketball and only <8 or so play cricket.
Limiting yourself to - at times - arbitrary political borders ignores the cultural similaries / differences that occur within a region. In that measure, I think it would be very interesting to look at cultural diversity in India versus Europe (it may not be as different as you think).
India has more than two thousand ethnic groups,[9] and every major religion is represented, as are four major families of languages (Indo-European, Dravidian, Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan languages) as well as two language isolates (the Nihali language[10] spoken in parts of Maharashtra and the Burushaski language spoken in parts of Jammu and Kashmir (Kashmir).
Further complexity is lent by the great variation that occurs across this population on social parameters such as income and education. Only the continent of Africa exceeds the linguistic, genetic and cultural diversity of the nation of India.
Studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have suggested substantial genetic homogeneity of European populations,[24] with only a few geographic or linguistic isolates appearing to be genetic isolates as well.[25] On the other hand, analyses of the Y chromosome [26][27] and of autosomal diversity[28] have shown a general gradient of genetic similarity running from the southeast to the northwest of the continent.
gibson wrote:Most sports Americans like are objectively superior to soccer, even baseball and hockey.
lol baseball is like the worst sport I can think of after bowls and cricket. Soccer/Basketball/Tennis are world sports. Even Waterpolo which you american scoff at is played in all of Europe and most of the world. (Serbia is the best country in the world at waterpolo, just throwing that out there).
How could you possibly think cricket is worse than baseball????
Because Cricket sucks; - Every 2nd guy has a dad bod and don't even look atheltic - It's played by like 5 fucking countries - Incredibly boring to watch - A single game can go over the course of several days (which is just bs) - I could actually watch a baseball game, but I wouldn't watch a Cricket game even if someone payed me to do so.
Cricket routinely ranks in the top 3 sports in the world by viewership popularity. (1)(2)
2.5 billion people vs an over-opinionated 15 year old from Queensland? Wonder who I will go with?
That's because India has 1.2 billion people you idiot. You don't look at by population but rather by countries. Europe has 750 million all together and 51 countries. So if China invents a sport tomorrow called (insert name) and everyone play it (1.3 million) that sport will be bigger than say a sport which all of Europe plays. There's the logic that your using, very dumb for a person that went to a "top university"
Why would everybody play a sport that "sucks", just because their country "invented" it (India didn't invent cricket, and even if it did and your logic makes sense, you have another 1.4 billion people to account for).
I never said India invented Cricket, learn to read. Bangladesh, Pakistan, SriLanka, South Africa, Australia, England. These are literally the only other countries that play this shit sport.
You still haven't explained why number of countries is a better metric than number of people.
So if there is a sport lets say called (1), and all of Europe plays that sport, 51 countries, 51 cultures, 51 differne't kind of people. And there is a different sport called (2), that only India plays but there is say 1 billion people that play this sport. I wouldn't consider that sport to be "bigger", or "larger" by any means. Even if more people play it. Because it's only 1 country, 1 kind of people. No competition aswell ofc. That's kind of how it is with cricket seeing has India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh make up about 70% of the people who play Cricket. Not only this but Cricket is just so dull and boring to watch. It's not your fault, you probably have some bogan father that grew up watching Cricket, and thus you did too. It's like a culture thing so I understand why you go defensive about it.
India is a very culturally diverse country, similar to Europe. Different religions, different languages, different culture and practices.
I, personally, don't watch cricket, but I don't presume to tell people what sport is "better" than others when people have subjective preferences for the games they play. It's about as silly as going on a rant about how chocolate is better than vanilla.
Unless you can put together a comprehensive framework as to what makes a sport "good", and then get everybody in the world to agree to it, you're opinion is pretty meaningless.
They are still all Indians, same people. Religion doesn't define your ethnicity, are you sure you finished uni man? FIBA World Cup had an audience of only 800 million. Nothing in comparison to 2.5billion that Cricket hosts. But are you seriously going to argue that Cricket is a larger/better/ more played sport. No way, because 171 countries play Basketball and only <8 or so play cricket.
Limiting yourself to - at times - arbitrary political borders ignores the cultural similaries / differences that occur within a region. In that measure, I think it would be very interesting to look at cultural diversity in India versus Europe (it may not be as different as you think).
India has more than two thousand ethnic groups,[9] and every major religion is represented, as are four major families of languages (Indo-European, Dravidian, Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan languages) as well as two language isolates (the Nihali language[10] spoken in parts of Maharashtra and the Burushaski language spoken in parts of Jammu and Kashmir (Kashmir).
Further complexity is lent by the great variation that occurs across this population on social parameters such as income and education. Only the continent of Africa exceeds the linguistic, genetic and cultural diversity of the nation of India.
Studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have suggested substantial genetic homogeneity of European populations,[24] with only a few geographic or linguistic isolates appearing to be genetic isolates as well.[25] On the other hand, analyses of the Y chromosome [26][27] and of autosomal diversity[28] have shown a general gradient of genetic similarity running from the southeast to the northwest of the continent.
An Indian from the West or South which have different cultures, nice. But they are still Indians.
gibson wrote:Most sports Americans like are objectively superior to soccer, even baseball and hockey.
lol baseball is like the worst sport I can think of after bowls and cricket. Soccer/Basketball/Tennis are world sports. Even Waterpolo which you american scoff at is played in all of Europe and most of the world. (Serbia is the best country in the world at waterpolo, just throwing that out there).
How could you possibly think cricket is worse than baseball????
Because Cricket sucks; - Every 2nd guy has a dad bod and don't even look atheltic - It's played by like 5 fucking countries - Incredibly boring to watch - A single game can go over the course of several days (which is just bs) - I could actually watch a baseball game, but I wouldn't watch a Cricket game even if someone payed me to do so.
Cricket routinely ranks in the top 3 sports in the world by viewership popularity. (1)(2)
2.5 billion people vs an over-opinionated 15 year old from Queensland? Wonder who I will go with?
That's because India has 1.2 billion people you idiot. You don't look at by population but rather by countries. Europe has 750 million all together and 51 countries. So if China invents a sport tomorrow called (insert name) and everyone play it (1.3 million) that sport will be bigger than say a sport which all of Europe plays. There's the logic that your using, very dumb for a person that went to a "top university"
Why would everybody play a sport that "sucks", just because their country "invented" it (India didn't invent cricket, and even if it did and your logic makes sense, you have another 1.4 billion people to account for).
I never said India invented Cricket, learn to read. Bangladesh, Pakistan, SriLanka, South Africa, Australia, England. These are literally the only other countries that play this shit sport.
You still haven't explained why number of countries is a better metric than number of people.
So if there is a sport lets say called (1), and all of Europe plays that sport, 51 countries, 51 cultures, 51 differne't kind of people. And there is a different sport called (2), that only India plays but there is say 1 billion people that play this sport. I wouldn't consider that sport to be "bigger", or "larger" by any means. Even if more people play it. Because it's only 1 country, 1 kind of people. No competition aswell ofc. That's kind of how it is with cricket seeing has India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh make up about 70% of the people who play Cricket. Not only this but Cricket is just so dull and boring to watch. It's not your fault, you probably have some bogan father that grew up watching Cricket, and thus you did too. It's like a culture thing so I understand why you go defensive about it.
India is a very culturally diverse country, similar to Europe. Different religions, different languages, different culture and practices.
I, personally, don't watch cricket, but I don't presume to tell people what sport is "better" than others when people have subjective preferences for the games they play. It's about as silly as going on a rant about how chocolate is better than vanilla.
Unless you can put together a comprehensive framework as to what makes a sport "good", and then get everybody in the world to agree to it, you're opinion is pretty meaningless.
They are still all Indians, same people. Religion doesn't define your ethnicity, are you sure you finished uni man? FIBA World Cup had an audience of only 800 million. Nothing in comparison to 2.5billion that Cricket hosts. But are you seriously going to argue that Cricket is a larger/better/ more played sport. No way, because 171 countries play Basketball and only <8 or so play cricket.
Limiting yourself to - at times - arbitrary political borders ignores the cultural similaries / differences that occur within a region. In that measure, I think it would be very interesting to look at cultural diversity in India versus Europe (it may not be as different as you think).
India has more than two thousand ethnic groups,[9] and every major religion is represented, as are four major families of languages (Indo-European, Dravidian, Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan languages) as well as two language isolates (the Nihali language[10] spoken in parts of Maharashtra and the Burushaski language spoken in parts of Jammu and Kashmir (Kashmir).
Further complexity is lent by the great variation that occurs across this population on social parameters such as income and education. Only the continent of Africa exceeds the linguistic, genetic and cultural diversity of the nation of India.
Studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have suggested substantial genetic homogeneity of European populations,[24] with only a few geographic or linguistic isolates appearing to be genetic isolates as well.[25] On the other hand, analyses of the Y chromosome [26][27] and of autosomal diversity[28] have shown a general gradient of genetic similarity running from the southeast to the northwest of the continent.
An Indian from the West or South which have different cultures, nice. But they are still Indians.
....? I recommend you read the whole post before responding.
gibson wrote:Most sports Americans like are objectively superior to soccer, even baseball and hockey.
lol baseball is like the worst sport I can think of after bowls and cricket. Soccer/Basketball/Tennis are world sports. Even Waterpolo which you american scoff at is played in all of Europe and most of the world. (Serbia is the best country in the world at waterpolo, just throwing that out there).
How could you possibly think cricket is worse than baseball????
Because Cricket sucks; - Every 2nd guy has a dad bod and don't even look atheltic - It's played by like 5 fucking countries - Incredibly boring to watch - A single game can go over the course of several days (which is just bs) - I could actually watch a baseball game, but I wouldn't watch a Cricket game even if someone payed me to do so.
Cricket routinely ranks in the top 3 sports in the world by viewership popularity. (1)(2)
2.5 billion people vs an over-opinionated 15 year old from Queensland? Wonder who I will go with?
That's because India has 1.2 billion people you idiot. You don't look at by population but rather by countries. Europe has 750 million all together and 51 countries. So if China invents a sport tomorrow called (insert name) and everyone play it (1.3 million) that sport will be bigger than say a sport which all of Europe plays. There's the logic that your using, very dumb for a person that went to a "top university"
Why would everybody play a sport that "sucks", just because their country "invented" it (India didn't invent cricket, and even if it did and your logic makes sense, you have another 1.4 billion people to account for).
I never said India invented Cricket, learn to read. Bangladesh, Pakistan, SriLanka, South Africa, Australia, England. These are literally the only other countries that play this shit sport.
You still haven't explained why number of countries is a better metric than number of people.
So if there is a sport lets say called (1), and all of Europe plays that sport, 51 countries, 51 cultures, 51 differne't kind of people. And there is a different sport called (2), that only India plays but there is say 1 billion people that play this sport. I wouldn't consider that sport to be "bigger", or "larger" by any means. Even if more people play it. Because it's only 1 country, 1 kind of people. No competition aswell ofc. That's kind of how it is with cricket seeing has India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh make up about 70% of the people who play Cricket. Not only this but Cricket is just so dull and boring to watch. It's not your fault, you probably have some bogan father that grew up watching Cricket, and thus you did too. It's like a culture thing so I understand why you go defensive about it.
India is a very culturally diverse country, similar to Europe. Different religions, different languages, different culture and practices.
I, personally, don't watch cricket, but I don't presume to tell people what sport is "better" than others when people have subjective preferences for the games they play. It's about as silly as going on a rant about how chocolate is better than vanilla.
Unless you can put together a comprehensive framework as to what makes a sport "good", and then get everybody in the world to agree to it, you're opinion is pretty meaningless.
They are still all Indians, same people. Religion doesn't define your ethnicity, are you sure you finished uni man? FIBA World Cup had an audience of only 800 million. Nothing in comparison to 2.5billion that Cricket hosts. But are you seriously going to argue that Cricket is a larger/better/ more played sport. No way, because 171 countries play Basketball and only <8 or so play cricket.
Limiting yourself to - at times - arbitrary political borders ignores the cultural similaries / differences that occur within a region. In that measure, I think it would be very interesting to look at cultural diversity in India versus Europe (it may not be as different as you think).
India has more than two thousand ethnic groups,[9] and every major religion is represented, as are four major families of languages (Indo-European, Dravidian, Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan languages) as well as two language isolates (the Nihali language[10] spoken in parts of Maharashtra and the Burushaski language spoken in parts of Jammu and Kashmir (Kashmir).
Further complexity is lent by the great variation that occurs across this population on social parameters such as income and education. Only the continent of Africa exceeds the linguistic, genetic and cultural diversity of the nation of India.
Studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have suggested substantial genetic homogeneity of European populations,[24] with only a few geographic or linguistic isolates appearing to be genetic isolates as well.[25] On the other hand, analyses of the Y chromosome [26][27] and of autosomal diversity[28] have shown a general gradient of genetic similarity running from the southeast to the northwest of the continent.
An Indian from the West or South which have different cultures, nice. But they are still Indians.
....? I recommend you read the whole post before responding.
You don't understand, in the mind of a nationalist like sirmusket the only thing that really matters is national origin. It doesn't matter that someone from northern india is often going to be culturally and ethnically identical to someone from southern China, and isn't going to be anything like someone from south India. "But they are still Indians", thats the only thing that matters.
gibson wrote:Most sports Americans like are objectively superior to soccer, even baseball and hockey.
lol baseball is like the worst sport I can think of after bowls and cricket. Soccer/Basketball/Tennis are world sports. Even Waterpolo which you american scoff at is played in all of Europe and most of the world. (Serbia is the best country in the world at waterpolo, just throwing that out there).
How could you possibly think cricket is worse than baseball????
Because Cricket sucks; - Every 2nd guy has a dad bod and don't even look atheltic - It's played by like 5 fucking countries - Incredibly boring to watch - A single game can go over the course of several days (which is just bs) - I could actually watch a baseball game, but I wouldn't watch a Cricket game even if someone payed me to do so.
Cricket routinely ranks in the top 3 sports in the world by viewership popularity. (1)(2)
2.5 billion people vs an over-opinionated 15 year old from Queensland? Wonder who I will go with?
That's because India has 1.2 billion people you idiot. You don't look at by population but rather by countries. Europe has 750 million all together and 51 countries. So if China invents a sport tomorrow called (insert name) and everyone play it (1.3 million) that sport will be bigger than say a sport which all of Europe plays. There's the logic that your using, very dumb for a person that went to a "top university"
Why would everybody play a sport that "sucks", just because their country "invented" it (India didn't invent cricket, and even if it did and your logic makes sense, you have another 1.4 billion people to account for).
I never said India invented Cricket, learn to read. Bangladesh, Pakistan, SriLanka, South Africa, Australia, England. These are literally the only other countries that play this shit sport.
You still haven't explained why number of countries is a better metric than number of people.
So if there is a sport lets say called (1), and all of Europe plays that sport, 51 countries, 51 cultures, 51 differne't kind of people. And there is a different sport called (2), that only India plays but there is say 1 billion people that play this sport. I wouldn't consider that sport to be "bigger", or "larger" by any means. Even if more people play it. Because it's only 1 country, 1 kind of people. No competition aswell ofc. That's kind of how it is with cricket seeing has India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh make up about 70% of the people who play Cricket. Not only this but Cricket is just so dull and boring to watch. It's not your fault, you probably have some bogan father that grew up watching Cricket, and thus you did too. It's like a culture thing so I understand why you go defensive about it.
India is a very culturally diverse country, similar to Europe. Different religions, different languages, different culture and practices.
I, personally, don't watch cricket, but I don't presume to tell people what sport is "better" than others when people have subjective preferences for the games they play. It's about as silly as going on a rant about how chocolate is better than vanilla.
Unless you can put together a comprehensive framework as to what makes a sport "good", and then get everybody in the world to agree to it, you're opinion is pretty meaningless.
They are still all Indians, same people. Religion doesn't define your ethnicity, are you sure you finished uni man? FIBA World Cup had an audience of only 800 million. Nothing in comparison to 2.5billion that Cricket hosts. But are you seriously going to argue that Cricket is a larger/better/ more played sport. No way, because 171 countries play Basketball and only <8 or so play cricket.
Limiting yourself to - at times - arbitrary political borders ignores the cultural similaries / differences that occur within a region. In that measure, I think it would be very interesting to look at cultural diversity in India versus Europe (it may not be as different as you think).
India has more than two thousand ethnic groups,[9] and every major religion is represented, as are four major families of languages (Indo-European, Dravidian, Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan languages) as well as two language isolates (the Nihali language[10] spoken in parts of Maharashtra and the Burushaski language spoken in parts of Jammu and Kashmir (Kashmir).
Further complexity is lent by the great variation that occurs across this population on social parameters such as income and education. Only the continent of Africa exceeds the linguistic, genetic and cultural diversity of the nation of India.
Studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have suggested substantial genetic homogeneity of European populations,[24] with only a few geographic or linguistic isolates appearing to be genetic isolates as well.[25] On the other hand, analyses of the Y chromosome [26][27] and of autosomal diversity[28] have shown a general gradient of genetic similarity running from the southeast to the northwest of the continent.
An Indian from the West or South which have different cultures, nice. But they are still Indians.
....? I recommend you read the whole post before responding.
You don't understand, in the mind of a nationalist like sirmusket the only thing that really matters is national origin. It doesn't matter that someone from northern india is often going to be culturally and ethnically identical to someone from southern China, and isn't going to be anything like someone from south India. "But they are still Indians", thats the only thing that matters.
He's like 14, can't say I was much better at that age.
There is nothing more Australian then playing backyard cricket on Christmas day and giving your uncle a bit of "chin music" (purposely aiming for his head). Either that, or buying a $2 snag at your local Bunnings on a Sunday morning.
outta_key_ wrote:There is nothing more Australian then playing backyard cricket on Christmas day and giving your uncle a bit of "chin music" (purposely aiming for his head). Either that, or buying a $2 snag at your local Bunnings on a Sunday morning.
This is the dream. Though local bunnings has upped it to $2.50 which is pretty devastating. I guess the price has been the same for like 20 years so it was bound to happen.
outta_key_ wrote:There is nothing more Australian then playing backyard cricket on Christmas day and giving your uncle a bit of "chin music" (purposely aiming for his head). Either that, or buying a $2 snag at your local Bunnings on a Sunday morning.
This is the dream. Though local bunnings has upped it to $2.50 which is pretty devastating. I guess the price has been the same for like 20 years so it was bound to happen.
Never was a fan of the 2 dollar sausages at Bunnings, the 1 dollar Ikea hot dogs are way better
gibson wrote:Most sports Americans like are objectively superior to soccer, even baseball and hockey.
lol baseball is like the worst sport I can think of after bowls and cricket. Soccer/Basketball/Tennis are world sports. Even Waterpolo which you american scoff at is played in all of Europe and most of the world. (Serbia is the best country in the world at waterpolo, just throwing that out there).
How could you possibly think cricket is worse than baseball????
Because Cricket sucks; - Every 2nd guy has a dad bod and don't even look atheltic - It's played by like 5 fucking countries - Incredibly boring to watch - A single game can go over the course of several days (which is just bs) - I could actually watch a baseball game, but I wouldn't watch a Cricket game even if someone payed me to do so.
Cricket routinely ranks in the top 3 sports in the world by viewership popularity. (1)(2)
2.5 billion people vs an over-opinionated 15 year old from Queensland? Wonder who I will go with?
That's because India has 1.2 billion people you idiot. You don't look at by population but rather by countries. Europe has 750 million all together and 51 countries. So if China invents a sport tomorrow called (insert name) and everyone play it (1.3 million) that sport will be bigger than say a sport which all of Europe plays. There's the logic that your using, very dumb for a person that went to a "top university"
Why would everybody play a sport that "sucks", just because their country "invented" it (India didn't invent cricket, and even if it did and your logic makes sense, you have another 1.4 billion people to account for).
I never said India invented Cricket, learn to read. Bangladesh, Pakistan, SriLanka, South Africa, Australia, England. These are literally the only other countries that play this shit sport.
You still haven't explained why number of countries is a better metric than number of people.
So if there is a sport lets say called (1), and all of Europe plays that sport, 51 countries, 51 cultures, 51 differne't kind of people. And there is a different sport called (2), that only India plays but there is say 1 billion people that play this sport. I wouldn't consider that sport to be "bigger", or "larger" by any means. Even if more people play it. Because it's only 1 country, 1 kind of people. No competition aswell ofc. That's kind of how it is with cricket seeing has India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh make up about 70% of the people who play Cricket. Not only this but Cricket is just so dull and boring to watch. It's not your fault, you probably have some bogan father that grew up watching Cricket, and thus you did too. It's like a culture thing so I understand why you go defensive about it.
India is a very culturally diverse country, similar to Europe. Different religions, different languages, different culture and practices.
I, personally, don't watch cricket, but I don't presume to tell people what sport is "better" than others when people have subjective preferences for the games they play. It's about as silly as going on a rant about how chocolate is better than vanilla.
Unless you can put together a comprehensive framework as to what makes a sport "good", and then get everybody in the world to agree to it, you're opinion is pretty meaningless.
They are still all Indians, same people. Religion doesn't define your ethnicity, are you sure you finished uni man? FIBA World Cup had an audience of only 800 million. Nothing in comparison to 2.5billion that Cricket hosts. But are you seriously going to argue that Cricket is a larger/better/ more played sport. No way, because 171 countries play Basketball and only <8 or so play cricket.
Limiting yourself to - at times - arbitrary political borders ignores the cultural similaries / differences that occur within a region. In that measure, I think it would be very interesting to look at cultural diversity in India versus Europe (it may not be as different as you think).
India has more than two thousand ethnic groups,[9] and every major religion is represented, as are four major families of languages (Indo-European, Dravidian, Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan languages) as well as two language isolates (the Nihali language[10] spoken in parts of Maharashtra and the Burushaski language spoken in parts of Jammu and Kashmir (Kashmir).
Further complexity is lent by the great variation that occurs across this population on social parameters such as income and education. Only the continent of Africa exceeds the linguistic, genetic and cultural diversity of the nation of India.
Studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have suggested substantial genetic homogeneity of European populations,[24] with only a few geographic or linguistic isolates appearing to be genetic isolates as well.[25] On the other hand, analyses of the Y chromosome [26][27] and of autosomal diversity[28] have shown a general gradient of genetic similarity running from the southeast to the northwest of the continent.
An Indian from the West or South which have different cultures, nice. But they are still Indians.
....? I recommend you read the whole post before responding.
You don't understand, in the mind of a nationalist like sirmusket the only thing that really matters is national origin. It doesn't matter that someone from northern india is often going to be culturally and ethnically identical to someone from southern China, and isn't going to be anything like someone from south India. "But they are still Indians", thats the only thing that matters.
South and Northern Indians aren't ethnically different, but culturally different. Cutlure doesn't define ethnicity. But I'm not suprised you can't comprehend this simple concept as you probably barely passed high school
I was going to try to explain to sirmusket that just because someone comes from inside the same imaginary lines as someone else doesnt mean they come from the same culture, but then I remembered he has an iq of 1 and is racist to boot so theres no point.
lol just learn to write normal atleast then try make a reasoned argument. What in the world are these "Imaginary lines" you're talking about. They are called borders, to distinguish difference countries/people/races.
actually just to distinguish between different countries...
gibson wrote:Most sports Americans like are objectively superior to soccer, even baseball and hockey.
lol baseball is like the worst sport I can think of after bowls and cricket. Soccer/Basketball/Tennis are world sports. Even Waterpolo which you american scoff at is played in all of Europe and most of the world. (Serbia is the best country in the world at waterpolo, just throwing that out there).
How could you possibly think cricket is worse than baseball????
Because Cricket sucks; - Every 2nd guy has a dad bod and don't even look atheltic - It's played by like 5 fucking countries - Incredibly boring to watch - A single game can go over the course of several days (which is just bs) - I could actually watch a baseball game, but I wouldn't watch a Cricket game even if someone payed me to do so.
Cricket routinely ranks in the top 3 sports in the world by viewership popularity. (1)(2)
2.5 billion people vs an over-opinionated 15 year old from Queensland? Wonder who I will go with?
That's because India has 1.2 billion people you idiot. You don't look at by population but rather by countries. Europe has 750 million all together and 51 countries. So if China invents a sport tomorrow called (insert name) and everyone play it (1.3 million) that sport will be bigger than say a sport which all of Europe plays. There's the logic that your using, very dumb for a person that went to a "top university"
Why would everybody play a sport that "sucks", just because their country "invented" it (India didn't invent cricket, and even if it did and your logic makes sense, you have another 1.4 billion people to account for).
I never said India invented Cricket, learn to read. Bangladesh, Pakistan, SriLanka, South Africa, Australia, England. These are literally the only other countries that play this shit sport.
You still haven't explained why number of countries is a better metric than number of people.
So if there is a sport lets say called (1), and all of Europe plays that sport, 51 countries, 51 cultures, 51 differne't kind of people. And there is a different sport called (2), that only India plays but there is say 1 billion people that play this sport. I wouldn't consider that sport to be "bigger", or "larger" by any means. Even if more people play it. Because it's only 1 country, 1 kind of people. No competition aswell ofc. That's kind of how it is with cricket seeing has India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh make up about 70% of the people who play Cricket. Not only this but Cricket is just so dull and boring to watch. It's not your fault, you probably have some bogan father that grew up watching Cricket, and thus you did too. It's like a culture thing so I understand why you go defensive about it.
India is a very culturally diverse country, similar to Europe. Different religions, different languages, different culture and practices.
I, personally, don't watch cricket, but I don't presume to tell people what sport is "better" than others when people have subjective preferences for the games they play. It's about as silly as going on a rant about how chocolate is better than vanilla.
Unless you can put together a comprehensive framework as to what makes a sport "good", and then get everybody in the world to agree to it, you're opinion is pretty meaningless.
They are still all Indians, same people. Religion doesn't define your ethnicity, are you sure you finished uni man? FIBA World Cup had an audience of only 800 million. Nothing in comparison to 2.5billion that Cricket hosts. But are you seriously going to argue that Cricket is a larger/better/ more played sport. No way, because 171 countries play Basketball and only <8 or so play cricket.
Limiting yourself to - at times - arbitrary political borders ignores the cultural similaries / differences that occur within a region. In that measure, I think it would be very interesting to look at cultural diversity in India versus Europe (it may not be as different as you think).
India has more than two thousand ethnic groups,[9] and every major religion is represented, as are four major families of languages (Indo-European, Dravidian, Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan languages) as well as two language isolates (the Nihali language[10] spoken in parts of Maharashtra and the Burushaski language spoken in parts of Jammu and Kashmir (Kashmir).
Further complexity is lent by the great variation that occurs across this population on social parameters such as income and education. Only the continent of Africa exceeds the linguistic, genetic and cultural diversity of the nation of India.
Studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have suggested substantial genetic homogeneity of European populations,[24] with only a few geographic or linguistic isolates appearing to be genetic isolates as well.[25] On the other hand, analyses of the Y chromosome [26][27] and of autosomal diversity[28] have shown a general gradient of genetic similarity running from the southeast to the northwest of the continent.
An Indian from the West or South which have different cultures, nice. But they are still Indians.
....? I recommend you read the whole post before responding.
You don't understand, in the mind of a nationalist like sirmusket the only thing that really matters is national origin. It doesn't matter that someone from northern india is often going to be culturally and ethnically identical to someone from southern China, and isn't going to be anything like someone from south India. "But they are still Indians", thats the only thing that matters.
South and Northern Indians aren't ethnically different, but culturally different. Cutlure doesn't define ethnicity. But I'm not suprised you can't comprehend this simple concept as you probably barely passed high school
just a simple google search. First result.
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.