As opposed to Shodan’s assertion that Tim Tebow’s public prayers are beyond reproach and no one has any right to mock him, which should of course be accepted as incontrovertible fact.
Seriously, let me help you out here… if lots of people are making fun of you, you’re probably doing something at least marginally unusual, excessive, or silly.
Unless the thing that people are making fun of you for is christian in nature, in which case they’re intolerant and anti-christian, of course. :rolleyes:
You do realize that none of what you just now posted is related to any of my posts, right?
Why would I want to discuss rape or dog fighting or read your links about them - they have absolutely nothing to do with my involvement in this thread or the point I was making.
“Google vomits”? That is your rebuttal? You’re calling a software system names? I’ve never really interacted with you much, but I must say your posts lack persuasiveness.
If you think that the number of hits on google for a social item doesn’t provide any data regarding the level of awareness of that social item by the population then please make your argument.
I bow to the voice of experience.
Regards,
Shodan
Or it could very well be that the people making fun of you belong to a political or religious faction that habitually uses ridicule and mockery to harass and hopefully silence those who do not conform to their faction.
Is there another kind of political or religious faction?
Would you include SNL in that? I think they regularly make fun of public people that do things that rise above the noise of our society: politicians, athletes, entertainers, etc.
I’ve noticed that about Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Coulter, and the rest of that crowd.
“Google vomits” is not an insult to the software; it is a comment on the behavior of the user who simply plugs a word or phrase into Google and uncritically accepts all the thousands of hits on the phrase as evidence of something or other.
If you don’t understand an expression, just ask and someone will explain it to you. 
I suppose in the not-white and white world that some of us inhabit, that could appear to be the case. In the actual, colorful world where the rest of us live, the problem generally isn’t everyone else, dear.
Oddly enough, “google vomit” only gets 3,190 hits.
I’m pretty sure both that it’s “google vomit” and that I’m the Doper who coined the term back in 2005 I think. I also charge a nickle every time someone uses it… which is why it’s very clever to have used “google vomits”.
I will get my nickle…
Number of hits on google IS evidence of “something or other” - it’s evidence of the number of web pages with content that generally match that filter - and it is reasonable to extrapolate that the number of web pages substantially maps to the general level of public consciousness and exposure to a topic (generally, ballpark, orders of magitude-ish).
Who used it uncritically? I compared multiple sports figures of varying levels of public religious activities, all with an order of magnitude fewer hits than Tebow when paired with religious display while at the same time having generally similar or more hits when the religious display is removed. These are the sports figures:
Tim Tebow
Kurt Warner
Peyton Manning
Randy Moss
Bill Belichick
Was it supposed to stand by itself? Nope, just 1 piece of evidence to be combined with various others
Note: I see you may have just been explaining a term I’m unfamiliar with as opposed to defending Shodan’s position, which is what I interpreted your post to be.
. . . when Cecil acknowldges the superiority of Marilyn vos Savant.
True. I was only explaining the term.
The only reason this thread is still in Great Debates is that I can’t persuade any other Mod to accept it in his or her forum.
Maybe another board? Youtube has a comments section.
Well that’s not very neighborly.
You used it uncritically because there is no way to know if any given hit is a negative, positive or neutral comment on Tebow. Now, if you want to wade through all of them and rate them according to some objective criteria, I’d love to see the results.
But beyond that, “excessive” is inherently subjective. Even if you get a bunch of people to agree with you, all you have is argumentum ad populum.
So if there’s no objective definition of excessive, then RaftPeople can’t be any wronger than you are, right?
In a case like this we don’t need to know what each hit represents, it just shows that there is much public awareness - his activities stand out.
Coupled with all of the other data - all of the games we have personally watched and noted that he makes religious displays more frequently than the other players, the skits on SNL, jokes by various comedians, comments on forums, debates on SDMB, other football players mimicing him, etc. etc. etc. - it becomes pretty clear that we can reasonably say “Tim Tebow makes religious gestures more frequently than most other players”.
Really all that is going on is I was humoring Shodan who is apparently unaware that Tim Tebow makes religious gestures more frequently than most players.
Once the “more frequently” is established, the next step is to talk about “excessive”.
But when it comes to a social norm, it’s not a fallacious argument. The very essence of the situation relates to how the people perceive it. And it basically comes down to some sort of poorly defined majority (60%? 70%?) - that’s how our brains work, patterns etc.
Question:
Would agree that there are behaviors that are considered “excessive”, maybe a fan that is jumping around on every play and hollering etc.?
I’m not sure if you think it’s not a good way to classify any behavior, or whether you just happen to think Tebow’s is mild enough that it doesn’t rise to the level of excessive.