BuzzerBeater Forums

just had a looksee @ ur team fishy, ur starters are as old as mine! haha

we will see geriatrics lineup when we next meet! smeltz and xie being the youngest on court

yeah and even more funny that your trainee is 25 and mine is 26

even if xie only gets 2 or 3 pops a season, im still going to stick with him, what is better than improving your best player even if it is super slow?

sad to say but smeltz is most likely capped

its no longer all about smeltz and the time has come for the SAS to train up some guards to help get smeltz to the ABBL b4 he is 42 and wayyy over the hill ... lol

I believe you are right about that, but I still don't think the analogy fits.

This is a mathematical debate which cannot be won without context. Well, out of context, and purely mathematically, the 0-8 is "better" but that doesn't mean that in all contexts it is better, especially not in a game of basketball.

(edit: again, a ridiculous amount of posts late)

Last edited by Axis123 at 5/16/2011 8:52:10 AM

It's ridiculous that you trained that guy from scratch......... Ridiculous in a good way

What were his stats starting out?

This is a mathematical debate which cannot be won without context. Well, out of context, and purely mathematically, the 0-8 is "better" but that doesn't mean that in all contexts it is better, especially not in a game of basketball.

I agree that contexts are relevant, but the reason the murder analogy fits is because context is arguably relevant there as well. For example, Person A thinks murder is wrong, Person B thinks murder is wrong unless the person murdered was a bad person, Person C thinks murder is wrong unless it is the government murdering a criminal (i.e. death penalty) and Person D thinks murder is wrong unless it is in war. Arguably, in different contexts each of these people might be right.

Person A thinks murder is wrong, Person B thinks murder is wrong unless the person murdered was a bad person, Person C thinks murder is wrong unless it is the government murdering a criminal (i.e. death penalty) and Person D thinks murder is wrong unless it is in war. Arguably, in different contexts each of these people might be right.

I think that all of these people are wrong but this is a worthless line of argument because all of these postions are based on the moral beliefs of the individuals none of which are ever truly "right" or "wrong" they are all just points of view.

Jain Digambara will go "skyclad" because cotton is cruel to plants and will not even "murder" a mosquito when it is taking their blood. Some wear masks over their mouths to prevent them accidentally swallowing inscets and one of only two possessions they are supposed to own is a peacock feather broom so they can sweep ants out of their path and not kill them. They would disagree with all of your examples.

At the other extreme we have terrorist who is willing to murder thousands of innocent civilaians and even their own families and themselves in order to acieve an outcome for their cause. They believe they are doing the right thing. For that matter think of the most evil people of the 20th century, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Uncle Ho, Mussiloni, they all thought they were doing the "right" thing and making the world a better place. Obviously I would disagree with them but you cannot dispute that they were able to convince millions of the correctness of their cause. Just because we aren't convinced doesn't make them wrong, it makes them wrong to us.

hmm its so long now and i never really bothered to keep his starting stats, all i remember is that he started off on a 5kish salary

I think that all of these people are wrong but this is a worthless line of argument because all of these postions are based on the moral beliefs of the individuals none of which are ever truly "right" or "wrong" they are all just points of view.

Well that's my point exactly isn't it ;) They are all based on different contexts and thus are right in a particular context (or moral framework) and wrong in another context (another person's moral framework).

Your examples of the killing animals and the terrorist just prove my point that context is relevant ;)

I would disagree with them but you cannot dispute that they were able to convince millions of the correctness of their cause. Just because we aren't convinced doesn't make them wrong, it makes them wrong to us.

I disagree with that. If there are objective moral values, then our subjective view of their actions isn't relevant as they would be "wrong" under the objective morals. i.e. Do not murder.

There are objective moral rules that have been all very clearly revealed to us. Word by word. It is perfectly clear. There can be no debate. All you have to do to learn them is read the Quran.