Phx-Suns.Net

INFORMER wrote:If I've offended you, then I apologize. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Don't worry, we just have a different oppinion on this issue and there is plenty of room for debate, as long as we don't use things like ad hominem arguments.

Ring_Wanted wrote: as long as we don't use things like ad hominem arguments.

But please, let's be clear about something here: there was nothing ad hominem about my response to you.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

Challenging how the relevant issues of a debate are being labeled is not an attack, casting doubt on character, or criticizing a personal attribute.

SDC wrote:you misread the situation. you say "Some teams can endure the punishment like it's nothing." the luxury tax is meant to punish THOSE RICH TEAMS. just like socialist france's punitive 75% supertax on their 1% is meant to punish the rich there.

The problem is that it is not just the rich teams the ones punished. Any team has to pay it, regardless of how wealthy the owner is. And obviously, when the times come to make decisions, it has a different impact depending on who has to write the checks.

Again, removing the l-tax won't create a Madrid-Barcelona environment, because there's still a salary cap so NY, LAL and the likes can't just but whoever they want.

And the fact that teams like the Knicks or Nets have managed their resources horribly has nothing to do with the core of this argument. They have made stupid moves left and right, so they suck, but what if they had actually done well?

My point is that under the l-tax system, some teams have only one problem (finding talent) whereas others have two problems: not only they need to acquire said talent, but also finding a way to afford it.

INFORMER wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote: as long as we don't use things like ad hominem arguments.

But please, let's be clear about something here: there was nothing ad hominem about my response to you.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

Challenging how the relevant issues of a debate are being labeled is not an attack, casting doubt on character, or criticizing a personal attribute.

Are you sure? You said that I was using 'loaded' words, artificially inflating my argument.

That's making me look like I am 'cheating'. If you cheat, you don't have legitimacy. Lack of legitimacy by the speaker (character) is the core of ad hominem arguments.

SDC wrote:
here's are thought experiments:

1) what happens if you abolish the luxury tax but you cap individual salaries for players?

2) what happens if you abolish individual caps on salaries but keep the luxury tax?

3) what happens if you abolish both?

i'll try answering my own questions.

1) teams that can afford 4 max players contracts or more will benefit.

2) the richest/most talented players will get richer. the middle class players will be eliminated and become veteran minimum earners.

3) then the nba becomes a barcelona-real madrid two team league, or maybe top four teams at best. goodbye spurs.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

SDC wrote:you misread the situation. you say "Some teams can endure the punishment like it's nothing." the luxury tax is meant to punish THOSE RICH TEAMS. just like socialist france's punitive 75% supertax on their 1% is meant to punish the rich there.

The problem is that it is not just the rich teams the ones punished. Any team has to pay it, regardless of how wealthy the owner is. And obviously, when the times come to make decisions, it has a different impact depending on who has to write the checks.

Again, removing the l-tax won't create a Madrid-Barcelona environment, because there's still a salary cap so NY, LAL and the likes can't just but whoever they want.

the owners are the ones who wanted the ltax to control spending and impose parity. the players that will benefit most from abolishing the ltax are the middle class veterans, not the star players.

Ring_Wanted wrote: Are you sure? You said that I was using 'loaded' words, artificially inflating my argument.

That's making me look like I am 'cheating'. If you cheat, you don't have legitimacy. Lack of legitimacy by the speaker (character) is the core of ad hominem arguments.

Ah, that's how you took it. I see where you're coming from now. No, I was not trying to insinuate that you were cheating. Nor was I accusing you of intentionally inflating your argument. I believe you were sincere in every word you said. I don't think you were just saying things to win. I think you were expressing a legitimate viewpoint based on what you believe and how you feel about the issues. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

So we can move on, everything is clear now. I respect you and I am glad we can discuss the way we usually do.

INFORMER wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote: Are you sure? You said that I was using 'loaded' words, artificially inflating my argument.

That's making me look like I am 'cheating'. If you cheat, you don't have legitimacy. Lack of legitimacy by the speaker (character) is the core of ad hominem arguments.

Ah, that's how you took it. I see where you're coming from now. No, I was not trying to insinuate that you were cheating. Nor was I accusing you of intentionally inflating your argument. I believe you were sincere in every word you said. I don't think you were just saying things to win. I think you were expressing a legitimate viewpoint based on what you believe and how you feel about the issues. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

And *I* believe that your mother was a whooooooore!!!!!!!!!

</argument> </win>

Mori Chu wrote:

INFORMER wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote: Are you sure? You said that I was using 'loaded' words, artificially inflating my argument.

That's making me look like I am 'cheating'. If you cheat, you don't have legitimacy. Lack of legitimacy by the speaker (character) is the core of ad hominem arguments.

Ah, that's how you took it. I see where you're coming from now. No, I was not trying to insinuate that you were cheating. Nor was I accusing you of intentionally inflating your argument. I believe you were sincere in every word you said. I don't think you were just saying things to win. I think you were expressing a legitimate viewpoint based on what you believe and how you feel about the issues. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

And *I* believe that your mother was a whooooooore!!!!!!!!!

</argument> </win>

Sleep it off, Mori.

I'm by no means close to giving up on Len, but it is a little discouraging to see Gobert and Adams blowing up this preseason.

Shabazz wrote:I'm by no means close to giving up on Len, but it is a little discouraging to see Gobert and Adams blowing up this preseason.

No doubt.

I've never missed on a prospect so badly. I thought Gobert was years away from being anything when I saw his workouts. I'm talking about not useful until his 2nd contract. I had no idea he'd be doing this in his 2nd year. It puts Utah in an interesting position with Kanter now, doesn't it? What could you move him for? It's strange because people are picking them to be one of the worst teams in the league, but their starting 5 seems solid going forward with Burke-Burks-Hayward-Favors-Gobert (even if Kanter is currently starting.) Burks is really blossoming too. What would be the most likely spot to upgrade there with Exum already in the fold? They may likely just hold on to Kanter depending on what kind of offer sheet he gets in RFA next Summer.

I haven't seen what Snyder is running offensively yet. What do they look like? Are they a running team now? That would be the weirdest thing to see after watching a plodding team in Utah for the last 20-something years.

Phoenix : 2014 :: Utah : 2015?

That is, maybe the Jazz are the team this year who everybody predicts will get 15-20 wins, but actually get 40-45 wins and impress people a lot. I could see it happening. Didn't think of it when I made my season predictions, but this could be one I was wrong about.

Link dump!

The Lakers might be the worst team in the NBA given that the 76ers aren't really an NBA team: http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/10/17/ ... obe-bryant

Tristan Thompson goes reverse Pop? Kisses sideline reporter: http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/10/ ... ome-reason

David West badly sprained his ankle. Pacers are in trouble:
http://www.sbnation.com/2014/10/18/7001 ... -mavericks

Mori Chu wrote:Phoenix : 2014 :: Utah : 2015?

That is, maybe the Jazz are the team this year who everybody predicts will get 15-20 wins, but actually get 40-45 wins and impress people a lot. I could see it happening. Didn't think of it when I made my season predictions, but this could be one I was wrong about.

I like their collection of talent, I just think they're a little too green. And the West is a bear.

The Lakers, Celtics and Sixers are the worst teams in the league, and the Clippers are great. Reality is all topsy-turvy.

Cap: Don't forget that the Knicks will be a minor disaster in their own right.

https://twitter.com/SBN_Ricky/status/524350870633598976 Even the bench cleared to help him up. That's kind of funny.

Noah started walking away until he saw all his teammates rushing over.