@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
For the Heat they lose they face of their franchise but they also made a sound if completely cold hearted business decision.
Appearing cold and heartless is not the way to attract good free agents. I expect that Miami will once again not be relevant until they draft someone who has the same star potential as a young D.Wade.
@Tyche said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:
A long time ago, sometime before the birth of Taylor Swift, I lived in a small apartment on the second floor.
So, your name is Luca?
@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
Topic Change edit: Reports are coming out the Wade will sign with the Bulls. While I know he is not the player he once was I find him leaving the Heat a team he has played on for 3 championships and 13 years rather shocking.
Wade is pissed because the Heat aren't paying him like the Lakers paid Kobe. Wade deserves to be the highest paid player on his team, yet has consistently agreed to lesser terms in order to field a contender. Now that the team appears to be struggling, he wants what he deserves -- or what has been deferred. So, he's pissed that the Heat are paying him less than what other teams will.
The Bulls deserve what they pay for: they got rid of one perennially-injured PG for another.
Well, fine, you assholes, I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT.
Although, one pundit believes that he left because of Westbrook, and I can kind of believe that.
@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:
My point is though he's being criticised primarily for being a bitch (and signing with a proven winner) and not disloyalty. So it's not at all that he's leaving OKC, only that he's joining GSW.
You already know my opinion on this, so I did not think it was necessary to repeat.
What makes this just awful and reprehensible is that KD jumped from OKC to the team that beat OKC after OKC got a 3-1 lead on them in a seven-game series. Using an awkward, non-sports-related analogy, that would be like General Pickett, after his loss at Gettysburg, suddenly defecting and joining the Union Army.
What elevates this to "o no he dint" status is the fact that KD was the cornerstone of a franchise. Without him, the entire team falls apart; the ownership is now forced to ship off Westbrook and plan for the future. The local market thusly is deprived of its only major sports team. So, yeah, there's going to be a lot of outrage.
But that's what I said before.
In what way was OKC a shitty place to work? The management had just put together a high-caliber team that drove OKC to 7 games in a series. How is that a shitty place to be?
LeBron left Cleveland because Cleveland was making bad personnel decisions. He was the only reason his team was a perennial contender. He left to go to Miami to win championships and solidify a champion's reputation, which he did. And then he returned with enough of clout, based on that reputation, to draw people to motherfucking Cleveland and bully the decision-makers into listening to him.
Did KD leave a great team to go to a better team? He sure did. But the collective sports world prefers to think of its heroes as people who conquer things, not people who bitch out. Maybe KD will return to OKC, but Westbrook won't be there when he does, and everyone will know that it wasn't KD that lifted GSW to a championship.
@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:
How would this conversation have played out if KD had signed with Boston or the Knicks?
Signing in Boston makes some sense. They have a core of young players that need a proven veteran to lead them. But then, you can say the same thing about OKC, but at least there you have Westbrook with you.
No one ever signs with the Knicks if they have talent and common sense.
@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
To me it is less abut economics then basic freedom, barring a contract that limits options people are free to work where they please (minus those activities forbidden by the government), his contract had expired he picked his new employer.
I can get behind that, but this is not the case. KD would have, and could have, made more money in OKC, as @Arkandel pointed out.
Non-competes remain enforceable, but there is an initiative by states to bar their enforcement (perhaps taking a cue from California).
It is certainly within KD's rights to sign where he wants. But we can criticize him for his choice, right? In which case, his choice makes him look like a pansy douchebag.
@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
Neither of us can prove it but anyone who thinks he did not is an utter and complete moron. (Edit to Add: technically I don't think it was fame alone that got him light punishment. I think his wealth had a lot to do with it as well)
In this case, I'm the utter and complete moron with personal experience with how difficult it is to win a criminal case. You should try it some time.
I am sorry, but I will never blame or think poorly of an athlete for switching work laundry, and will continue to find the logic of those that do utterly baffling.
That's all right. I feel the same way about folks who attempt to talk intelligently to me about economics.
@Thenomain said in Interest/Volunteer Check: Major Multisphere Chronicles of Darkness:
Dayton, Ohio. I dare you. I double dog dare you.
Fuuuuuck. Yoooou.
(If you do this, however, I will personally design your Grid.)
@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
The "But athletes are special" argument is why we get lings like the Baylor scandal or the various assaults that get swept under the rub or Ray Lewis being celebrated as a hero despite obstructing justice in a murder case.
I didn't say that athletes are special. I said they aren't like everyone else. The corporation employing the cashier doesn't spend millions of dollars getting the public to adore them, thereby causing the public to spend billions of dollars. The corporation doesn't spend time and effort to create a local cultural icon out of the cashier.
Your example is non-sequitur. The Baylor Scandal occurred because people were stupid and foolish. Cover-ups occur because people are stupid and foolish. No one said anyone should get away with murder because of their fame, and neither you nor I can prove that Ray Lewis received a lower punishment due to his fame alone.
Sports teams spend billions of dollars creating products and commodities to create their own little sub-culture. In that sub-culture are adults, like you and me, and children who aspire to greatness. When their cultural icons act, children take their cues. That's why I support intra-sport punishment above and beyond what the legal system can dole out.
It's one thing to support the free market; it's another thing to understand that the basic conceptualization of the free market arose prior to this nation convening its first Congress. Things aren't the way they used to be.
@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:
Let's talk about communication, then.
You said:
When someone asks "Do you believe in X?" the answer is never "Yes." or "No."
I said:
Actually, that is the answer to the question.
What I should have said was:
Actually, "yes" or "no" is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question, and are the only responsive answers requested by the inquiry.
This isn't a point of law or procedure. This is what the interrogatory is requesting. We're presuming, and perhaps correctly, that the original poster wanted reasons for the answer.
So, it is a simple question. We're making it complex, which was the point I was arguing.
And I certainly wasn't lamenting an actual discussion of contrary opinion. I was lamenting that the discussion had jumped into the realm of browbeating and belittling, which is, as you say, self-evident.
To be clear, were the stated premise "yes! paranormal shit exists!", my response would be, succinctly, that I lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of that statement, and therefore deny it.
@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:
When someone asks "Do you believe in X?" the answer is never "Yes." or "No."
Actually, that is the answer to the question. It is a question I ask all the time in depositions, at hearings, in trials, of my clients, etc. It is a question that my clients must answer, and I tell them, very clearly: "if it is a question that can be answered "yes" or "no," then answer "yes" or "no."" If I want an explanation, I'll ask for it.
@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:
In this instance, it would be those who consistently insist that something exists despite proof to the contrary that would be ‘cramming their beliefs’ down someone’s throat, by your definition of it.
This is a conclusion based on nothing I've written yet.
If I had a personal belief in God, and you were to ask me how I became successful, I might, in my brief wit, say that I was blessed. I don't consider this proselytizing; I consider this a statement of personal opinion based on knowledge you likely don't have (non-mystical, non-spiritual knowledge).
Now, if you came up to me and told me that there could not possibly be any evidence that I was blessed because I cannot have any evidence of any Divine Being with the capability of having any measurable relevance to my life, I would consider that "cramming your belief set down my throat." You may be, in your educated opinion, completely correct, but you are still "cramming your belief set down my throat." You are not criticizing or examining my opinion; you cannot do so without being informed of the knowledge that I possess, on which I've based my conclusion. Rather, you're belittling it based on your educated-and-probably-correct conclusions.
The original poster asked a simple question: "do you believe in paranormal things?" This isn't a complex question, and yet somehow, for some reason, we have witnessed 170+ posts of responses, acerbic and not, grandiloquent or not, for a question which begs only a "yes or no" answer.
It is not unreasonable from the sheer volume of discourse produced, that not only criticizes but, in many ways, demeans the idea that someone could believe in something for which no evidence has yet been discovered, to conclude that this is no longer a discussion or civil argument, but instead a concerted, if unconscious, effort to browbeat one or many perspectives.
So what I'm criticizing, in my roundabout way, is my observation that one group has effectively silenced another, for reasons I cannot quite fathom. If it is true that science evolves over time, as does reason, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the "paranormal" things we observe now will be quite rational in the far future, and it is not unreasonable for someone to be defensive or offended by what appears to be academic intimidation.
Some people just want to believe in something that isn't fully explainable. And if they aren't harming anyone else by it, so be it.
Getting DWade is a distinct possibility. LeBron may take a pay cut to get there, but others would need to pitch in.
One thing about this year's playoffs: it's about depth and durability. The Cavs got it done because they were resilient and deep; Richard Jefferson, although he didn't get many points, rebounded like a man possessed, and made the most of his time. DWade isn't exactly known for his durability, but he's a substantial upgrade over J.R. Smith (whose value I still don't understand).
Again, I'll say it: GSW ain't gonna get a ring this year. I would not be surprised if DWade moves north to sabotage the team that banked on how nice he truly is to keep him from being paid what he deserves (which is Kobe money).
@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:
We're also talking about Chuch Klosterman here. The man whose main focus is popular culture, music and sports. While his approach to American studies is interesting, I would rather not take my cues on science from him.
Klosterman's observation that the implausible has become plausible or that laws have been debunked constantly -- by science, within science -- since the dawn of time is no less poignant here. It is an observation, and it appears to be an apt one. As we are talking about science and appropriate propositions, I am compelled to point out that an ad hominem fallacy isn't particularly persuasive.
You don't have to believe, but, as with the opposite, I have concerns -- and then venom -- for those that would cram their set of beliefs down the throats of others. I don't need to consider Pascal's Wager when I see something which offends the part of me that is reasonable, rational, and logical.
@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:
So a superstars, who almost always get maximum contracts no matter where they play, are not motivated by money (*). They are motivated by rings.
Let's presume that for a moment.
You are no doubt aware of what happened in the wake of KD's defection; GSW had to waive the rights to Bogut and Ezeli, and let Harrison Barnes go (no harm there). They picked up another scrub Center, which means -- once again -- that they are weak up the middle. If you will recall in the final game, they were tired and out-rebounded. How does KD help that?
He doesn't. But what GSW did, strategically perhaps, is weaken OKC, who was their only true rival in the West. OKC pushed the GSW to 7 games in their season, which tired the hell out of GSW's Splash Brothers -- who couldn't make a shot in the final game, leaving the heavy lifting to Draymond Green (who played a hell of a game, but played it alone).
So, no. I don't think GSW is going to get a ring next year -- sorry. They have to address other problems, namely their lack of depth and weakness up the middle. And if KD starts getting ankle problems, or Curry's legs give out, you're in huge trouble in the playoffs.
So, I'm going to call it. I'm perfectly happy to eat crow. GSW ain't gonna get a ring next year. LeBron had a year to plan, train, and get his team better -- and they performed better. Richard Jefferson's already said he may come back after KD was traded -- no doubt to try and whomp on the Warriors again.
And, if you want an ultimate final? Let's see if Russell Westbrook takes a cut to go and play for the Cavs, shifting Kyrie Irving to SG. Because Westbrook seems pissed enough to do that.
@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:
Ultimately, the concept of life after death is either not true, or it exists in such a manner that it is incapable of being experienced or proven- at which point it bears absolutely no relevance whatsoever to us.
You are familiar with the placebo effect, I presume. What is or is not true is largely irrelevant if, by virtue of belief alone, there is a measurable reaction.
I get what you're trying to communicate, and yet I disagree with many of the blanket statements you have made to date regarding organized or disorganized religions.
And I think there is a certain danger in the blanket dismissal of what is considered plausible or implausible, at any time. You may find Chuck Klosterman's new book -- But What If We're Wrong? -- interesting.
Everything is implausible until it is done. Living in Dayton, I am constantly reminded of advances by the Wright Brothers and Charles Kettering, who dared -- simply dared, sir! -- to make the implausible a reality.
@ThatGuyThere said in The basketball thread:
This is the one or the two things about sports fandom I will never get. Athletes are working a job like anyone else. His contract was up how does him changing employers effect his reputation?
Superstar athletes aren't like everyone else. They are household names. They are recognized around the world. They are ambassadors for the game to the local, national, and international media, as well as serving as the face of charities and philanthropic organizations.
They are not like you and me.
Culturally, they are icons. They have influence. Children want to grow up to be like them. Teenagers want to be able to play like them. We're not even talking about the money; we're simply talking about the fetishism that arises out of sports culture. In the specular economy, superstars wield power by name and image alone.
Those who are mercenaries are treated the same. Mercenaries, with few exceptions, are not beloved by all; they turn based on money.
We could get into a very long discussion as to how reputation in the sports industry is tied to one's team allegiance, but suffice to say that changing teams does affect reputation in a way that is strangely similar to attitudes prevalent in more medieval contexts.
@Arkandel said in The basketball thread:
OKC's ownership group has been very iffy even for NBA standards. They left Seattle when a better offer came along and took the team to OKC, they let Harden go over relatively little money just after they had finally made the Finals... do you think if KD's ankle injuries of two seasons ago had gotten worse instead of better they'd have hesitated giving him up too? I'm sceptical on it.
My understanding is that the ownership group left after the local government declined assisting in the construction of a new complex for the second time.
Looking at the team without Harden, is it any worse? Of course not. Harden went to the Rockets and has done little to lead them to contention status. Westbrook and Durant were the pieces to build around, not Harden.
This isn't a matter of OKC failing to produce money. There's no mention of that. No one's saying that OKC short-changed Durant or low-balled him. That'd be a good reason to depart.
He left to pursue a championship with the team that made his team look foolish and incompetent. That beat him. And that's just not the sort of defeatism I'd expect from a true superstar.
OKC had a legitimate shot of knocking out GSW next year if Durant stuck around. He did not. And I don't see any way he shakes that reputation-hit.
@Arkandel said in Are MU* videogames:
I was chatting with an old friend who doesn't consider me a video gamer because I 'only play MMORPGs' (which isn't an entirely unwarranted assertion
) at which point I pointed out I still play MUSHes too.
What's funny is he considers MUDs video games but not MUSHes.
Your old friend probably has a great personality, but he sounds like a fucking moron here.
I'm in my mid-to-late 30s now. I have twins and a partner. I have a full-time job, and my character on RfK eats up time like a motherfucker. If that were my friend, I'd ghost on him right quick.