[News] The Athletic - NHL Owner Rankings - Murray Edwards 30th

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think you miss the point.

Ad Hominem attacks are for when you're losing an argument. It's a last gasp. If you do them everyone will see the argument for what it is ... failed.

If you approach a discussion with the notion that you can attack the other side personally because you know they're wrong, there's a big risk of possibly (inevitably) being wrong and then losing your credibility.

I get what you’re saying, but where your logic misses the mark is that the other party doesn’t always have the faculties to be part of an argument. When a poster says player a is better than player b even though player b is literally out scoring them by double, there is no intelligent discussion to be had.

And losing credibility means nothing online where opinions don’t change (as I mentioned my opinion earlier).

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

It’s actually totally ok and should be encouraged to let people know what you think of them in a positive or negative light. When you have multiple people telling you that you come across as an ass kisser maybe (with some self awareness) you could look inward and say “hmmm maybe I am, I should work on that”.

You can’t beat up on someone with facts when the person is fundamentally flawed. Like trying to explain how Knies is better than Kadri because (at the time) his point production was doubling Kadri. This point was dismissed because “points are a counting stat” lol. You can’t use facts against stupidity.

Isn't that everyone?

[GioforPM]

So far a certain poster has said I'm learning disabled, lack faculties to be part of an argument and am just plain stupid.

Which is pretty funny. I must have sure put a lot over on a lot of people and institutions. And there's a whole lot of lawyers who should be pretty ashamed of losing to me.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

My viewpoint isn’t truth and I’ve never claimed it to be that and no one has to fix anything, that’s the beauty of discussion. There’s a huge difference between understanding someone’s opinion and agreeing with it. Someone who isn’t capable of understanding others views is flawed, not whether they agree with those views or not. Further to that, it’s up to each individual how much value they apply to others opinions. I’m sure some people couldn’t care less about what I think, and that’s fine, I feel that way about some posters too. I tend to not value boot lickers.

We do not need to treat stupidity and stubbornness with kid gloves, it needs to get called out, it’s a welcome change on this board from the homerism.

Ok, I'll respond point by point here:

1) You're insisting your viewpoint “isn’t truth,” but in your original post you literally framed your issues of GioforPM as something they should “look inward” and fix because you believe multiple people agreed with you. That’s presenting your opinion as objective whether you intend it or not. And calling someone an “ass kisser” isn’t exactly the neutral, good faith “beauty of discussion” you’re describing here.

2) You've also shifted the goalposts. In the first post I quoted, you said you “can’t beat up on someone with facts when the person is fundamentally flawed.” That’s a pretty absolute judgment about a person, not their argument. Now you’re saying a person is flawed only if they “aren’t capable of understanding others’ views.”

3) The “I tend not to value boot lickers” bit just reinforces the problem: you are framing people you disagree with in the most uncharitable way possible, then use those labels to justify why you don’t have to engage with them.

4) Calling things out isn’t the issue. The issue is using labels like “stupid,” “stubborn,” “ass kisser,” or “fundamentally flawed” as shortcuts so you don’t have to actually deal with the argument. You say this isn’t about treating people with kid gloves but there’s a big difference between challenging someone’s ideas and writing them off as soon as they push back.

Insults and absolutes don't generate anything but the toxic communication we've been unadulterated with lately in all areas of life. We can all be more respectful and kinder to people in our community, even if we disagree with them. I don't think that's a lot to ask to be very honest.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

So far a certain poster has said I'm learning disabled, lack faculties to be part of an argument and am just plain stupid.

Which is pretty funny. I must have sure put a lot over on a lot of people and institutions. And there's a whole lot of lawyers who should be pretty ashamed of losing to me.

Lol I’m taking a screenshot of this. “Look at me I’m a lawyer I’m so smart!”. Hahaha

When that’s a lawyers response, you know you aren’t getting quality work.

[Calgary4LIfe]

There is zero excuse for disrespecting people and attacking them personally for their opinions. Is this what it has come down to? Being an asshat is 'taking the kid gloves off because the other person is stupid"?


You can respectfully engage in discourse, or you can't. Period.


If you can't, go sit in the corner and have a timeout until you learn to engage with people without resulting to insults. We all get angry at some point in time and say the wrong thing - own it and apologize for it. However, I see the same handful of people seemingly take delight in 'correcting the behaviour of others'. No, you are simply a jerk and you come here simply looking for an excuse to be a jerk.


This is a big failing in society right now - it is too easy to simply be a jerk, instead of bridge the proverbial gap. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to just be respectful, even if you don't agree with the other person. They are not satan for holding a different opinion - especially one as fricken benign regarding the ins and outs of a hockey team! If you are getting so worked up over entertainment, I can only imagine how you behave with actually personal things.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The trouble with articles like that one (and one I just saw grading teams at the quarter post) is that they lack nuance of where the team is at currently. So judge the Flames ownership on the steps they are taking at this point in the team's arc, but if they aren't spending to the cap, how does that even relate to the immediate goals? Similarly, if the Flames are "trying" for a high raft pick, why grade the team on its W/L or GF/GA? If the Flames finish last and win the lottery, that's an A+ grade for a lot of people here.

I see it in the similar vain where a contract like Huberdeau's is tagged as being the worst contract, but in all honesty it isn't hurting the Flames in any way. Where one like Nurse is actively stopping the Oilers from improving. You are right the bigger picture needs to be looked at and you really have to ask if those KPI even makes sense in this scenario.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I see it in the similar vain where a contract like Huberdeau's is tagged as being the worst contract, but in all honesty it isn't hurting the Flames in any way. Where one like Nurse is actively stopping the Oilers from improving. You are right the bigger picture needs to be looked at and you really have to ask if those KPI even makes sense in this scenario.

Huberdeau's contract only hurts in a few years and then only if the cap is flat again. He's never prevented them from making any move (right now it's maintaining the cap floor in fact).

[GioforPM]

LOL, I'm not especially smart, just not learning disabled, lacking in faculties or stupid. The trouble is, again, someone who things there's no in between.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Huberdeau's contract only hurts in a few years and then only if the cap is flat again. He's never prevented them from making any move (right now it's maintaining the cap floor in fact).

That's kind of like saying my car won't start, therefore the fact my brakes are shot isn't holding me back from using it. If the car would at least start, there'd be an excuse to fix the brakes.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I get what you’re saying, but where your logic misses the mark is that the other party doesn’t always have the faculties to be part of an argument. When a poster says player a is better than player b even though player b is literally out scoring them by double, there is no intelligent discussion to be had.

And losing credibility means nothing online where opinions don’t change (as I mentioned my opinion earlier).

But if you put yourself in the judge's chair to decide when you're in an argument with someone that you feel is beneath you (my words, you say deficiencies and lack of faculties), it doesn't hold much validity.

Like above when you say break from homerism ... right there you're labeling someone less angry about things as a homer. Not you're right to decide where that line is, and it's another ad hominem attack.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's kind of like saying my car won't start, therefore the fact my brakes are shot isn't holding me back from using it.

No, it's like saying "this car has a range of only 400KM, luckily I only have to drive 200km in the foreseeable future".

How is Huberdeau's contract hurting the team now? It's just not, except for the peple who feel badly when it's mentioned in an article as a bad contract. He doesn't prevent the Flames from making any moves. In fact, he allows the Flames to shed more salary than if he was paid $6M because he helps maintain the cap floor.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Lol I’m taking a screenshot of this. “Look at me I’m a lawyer I’m so smart!”. Hahaha

When that’s a lawyers response, you know you aren’t getting quality work.

Starting to think you and I wouldn't get along at all in person.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, it's like saying "this car has a range of only 400KM, luckily I only have to drive 200km in the foreseeable future".

How is Huberdeau's contract hurting the team now? It's just not, except for the peple who feel badly when it's mentioned in an article as a bad contract. He doesn't prevent the Flames from making any moves. In fact, he allows the Flames to shed more salary than if he was paid $6M because he helps maintain the cap floor.

Now calling me out and with the personal attacks on me?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Now calling me out and with the personal attacks on me?

Only if you are "peple" (I think imma leave that typo alone).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, it's like saying "this car has a range of only 400KM, luckily I only have to drive 200km in the foreseeable future".

How is Huberdeau's contract hurting the team now? It's just not, except for the peple who feel badly when it's mentioned in an article as a bad contract. He doesn't prevent the Flames from making any moves. In fact, he allows the Flames to shed more salary than if he was paid $6M because he helps maintain the cap floor.

The point is that whether the contract at the moment is hurting the team is superficial. I'd rather be worried about the cap hit because the player lived up to the contract and the team didn't have to tear down.

It's good that the contract isn't hurting the team now, but that is because everything failed.

[Bingo]

With Huberdeau (or any "bad" contract) I always try to decide how bad it is vs the relative value.

Guessing Huberdeau is roughly a $7M player based on recent production, maybe $7.5. Add in some special teams work and the leadership stuff and lets make it $8M.

So -$2.5M

Where is that vs say James Neal when he was here? $5.75M cap hit and what -$4M in value?

Where is Sharangovich now in value? Guessing worse than Huberdeau as a differential.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Can you PLEASE stop saying stuff like this. No one wants to be in the mushy middle. Just because people don't agree with your specific ideas on how to get out of there, doesn't mean that's what people want the mushy middle.

Or better yet show me ONE POST where someone says they are "fine with being in the mushy middle."

Perhaps we need a fan poll thread on here for preferred direction of the team and settle this once and for all.

Let's see how the true numbers of how many actually want to remain in the mushy middle.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The point is that whether the contract at the moment is hurting the team is superficial. I'd rather be worried about the cap hit because the player lived up to the contract and the team didn't have to tear down.

It's good that the contract isn't hurting the team now, but that is because everything failed.

I suppose, but there's some chicken and egg in that as well. I think Huberdeau's present play gets him PPG with linemates who he can play with and a decent powerplay. If he has those, then those guys are also good players and the team isn't tearing down and there's no failure.

Honestly there's a lot that went bad all at once.

[Ba'alzamon]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I hadn't heard that story about Neal. I have always thought Treliving was just checking bozes and wanted a big net crashing RHS finisher for the top line. Neal had never not scored 20 goals. Where I think all of that went wrong was a lack of due diligence past the goal totals. Neal had a rep and it wasn't a good one.

I'll say it was a lack of due diligence. Neal isn't even a RHS lol.