BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

And when I retort with "Prove that the Quran is true." you will be unable to meet my request. Not that I am saying the Quran is not true, or that the principles in it are not good principles, I am simply saying that you must be able to prove it is true for there to be a claim to objective moral rules.

Xerxes is it true that the Quran said one day the Earth's will orbit will steer right into the Sun ans everyone on the planet will be melted like ice?

When a Muslim told me that I told him that, the Earths orbit doesn't change much, it orbits are determined by the Suns and Earths gravitational pull... and its been like that for the 4 billion or so years. Scientists has said one day in the distant future say.. 6 billion years when our Sun has used up all its hydrogen fuel, the Sun would expand and in turn gobble up Mercury and Venus. Earth would still remain in orbit but its surface would like scorched like the current surface of Mercury and Venus. Soon after the Sun would implode and blow up as a supernova. The Earth in turn would be incinerated by the explosion and would cease to exist... the star dust will settle and be the building blocks for new stars and planets.

I think I lost that Muslim after I said orbit.. and gravitation... it was very apparent to be he had very little understanding of astronomy, he didn't even know the planets and what order or size they are. All he knew was that the Earth will orbit right into the Sun one day... but didnt know how.. didnt care how..

for those that where following the convo on chat last week about rebounding being expensive on guards.

the 100k guard i was talking about has 40k of his salary solely being spent on taking his rebounding from lv 1 to lv 7 .

the 40 k could be spent in many other areas on other players much more effectively as most guards will only grab a small number of rebounds due to how the game engine runs and well how basketball is played.
so really your paying 40k extra for a chance to get an extra 5-6 rebounds that you may have got anyway.

just on this player the 40 k could be spent on

3 extra lv's of od or
18 extra lv's of driving and handling ( 9 on each) 0r
10 extra lv's of passing (at which point he will change to a pg)
unlimited lv's of inside shot ( limted by potential yes , but never payed for in salary :) )
or a bunch of other skill ups (think the above got my point across)

there just examples on one player whose salary goes from 60k roughly to 100k roughly for a few levels of rebounding.