Reply With Quote
Re: Is Terry a dirty player?
if he is he should try to distance himself from dirk...although bruce might be able to get him some soap and DEODRANT!
Drew Gooden thinks he's dirty.
Re: Is Terry a dirty player?
if he is he should try to distance himself from dirk...although bruce might be able to get him some soap and DEODRANT!
One, who jumps up to block a shot and KICKS their feet out in midair? Nobody, that's why Wally got kicked in the face cause he didn't expect such a cheap ass play. Bowen slides his feet under players when they shoot and whether it's "intentional" or not, he should've figured out after Vince Carter wanted to kill him that it's obviously annoying/dangerous but he continues to do it, so yes, he DOES have the intention of injuring players.
I would have to agree with that. Everyone loses their temper. Bowen kicked Ray when he lost his temper. It happens. Neither players are dirty. Id LOVE to have BOTH guys on my team if I wear a coach or GM in the NBA.
I don't think he was trying to hurt finley when he
punched him in the nuts last year, he was just
trying to cop a feel.
I think a dirty defines someone that intensionally trys to hurt someone without being provoked. Bowen is the perfect example of that type of player.
Bruce has undercut shooters 7200 times as a starter.
It's a fact!
Dirk has taken out two Spurs by being under them while they were in the air.
Dirk was not provoked.
Dirk intentionally did it because I said so.
Dirk is dirty.
Since lying no longer requires intentional deception, then one's intention is no longer important in this discussion.
Are you saying I can't tell if what Dirk did was intentional?
That I'm being arbitrary saying it was definitely intentional?
I'm just saying that the word lying used to include the idea of intentionally deceiving someone.
If I believe something and I say it and it turns out not to be true, then I am not lying. I said something false, but I did not lie since I did it unknowingly or unintentionally.
So, if I see a farmer, see that he still has cows, have been informed reliably that in the past he had milk, why am I a liar if I say that I believe that he has milk (supposing that I actually believe this)? In any event, the farmer still has cows, so even if he does not have a stockpile of milk, he has the cows and the knowhow, so the lack of milk is not much of a problem, is it (since the dual use facilities can produce milk or something less toxic either one, whenever I want and less supervision is around)?
Assuming the worst about other people is usually the product of being a low character person. Just cuz you're evil, doesn't mean everyone else is.
People can be mistaken without lying.
I recognize that you are replacing Bruce with Dirk and you are making the same point that I am in a different way, how do people know that Bruce did this intentionally.
I am just tired of people poisoning the discussion by assuming without proof that people with whom they disagree are operating in bad faith. And I would say that I am moderately liberal in my political outlook. So, it's not like I have a deep desire to support the other side. But let's give up this poisoning the well of public discussion.
How is exposing the enormous flaw in your argument poisoning the well?
he definitely is, he doesn't shower
Players who call Bruce dirty = sissies ; Kobe, T-Mac, Peja, Wade love playing against Bruce and respect him
And Bruce never kicked anyone's balls (right, Jason Terry?) ; he never made a flagrant foul on a player going all the way to the basket (right, Stackhouse?)
I don't see an enormous flaw in the argument I presented.
I will give you an example of a theorem from General Topology (graduate versionie. for graduate math students pursuing their M.S. in math) that I proved for class last time.
Theorem 5.3: A subspace Y of a space X is disconnected if and only if there exist open sets U and V in X such that U n V does not equal the empty set, V intersect Y does not equal the empty set, U intersect V intersect Y does equal the empty set and Y is a subset of U union V.
I proved this using previous theorems and logic. Had there been any flaw in the logic, the proof would not have held. It did.
The point that I am making is that people should not assume the worst about other people. I think that is a reasonable proposition. Certainly, you can't prove it formally to be false.
Then my argument is flawless and perfect.I don't see an enormous flaw in the argument I presented.
Thanks.
How exactly?
Will you use proof by contradiction, indirect proof or direct proof?
This is a general proposition:
You seem to think that it is okay to assume the worst about other people and to assume without proof that they are operating in bad faith all the time.
I do not agree with that proposition.
How will you prove this universal proposition? Will you use proof by exhaustion and examine every case?
Do you believe that there exist moral absolutes?
How does one discover what they are?
Epistemology and ontology questions for you await.
I suggest you approach the deep end of the pool with some caution.
I suggest you take another look at whose post mine followed.
You're funny.
I suppose that you are reduced to this when you are unable to support your proposition.
I am funny. Both your screen names start with Mav.
Are you being serious?
Or are you just saying things regardless of whether they make sense?
The main point that I am trying to is the following: Let's not assume that other people are operating it bad faith without proof.
A corollary might be that : it is difficult to prove that somebody is lying: you must prove that they intentionally state something that they know is false.
The key is intention and knowledge must be established.
Chumpdumper, I am themanurules.
Manu is playing better, but he is not ruling right now. No rules are needed to adjust to him right now.
However, it is true that Mavs<Spurs which is equivalent to Spurs>Mavs.
So, I have adopted this name.
I guess the majority of the nba are sissies than. They don't like landing on Bowen's foot because Bowen intentionally steps into them.
I think that Chumpdumper is drunk.
Celebrating before the win???
Well, we should have confidence since the Spurs are the best team in the NBA and the Rockets demolished the Mavs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
