|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: How balla are you? | |||
| My name is Bones and I have boned a stripper |
   
|
8 | 22.86% |
| I am not bones, which means I'm lame |
  
|
27 | 77.14% |
| Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#201
07-19-2007, 01:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Vick indicted by the feds
[ QUOTE ]
They happen to be well run and ably led (outside of their shortsightedness about their own retirees) because they have an interest in maximizing the revenues for the game, hence meeting their fiduciary duty to their members by maximizing their potential salaries. When players hurt the image of the game, it hurts the image of the non-offending players as well as their earning potential. Disciplining a few bad apples is actually a benefit for the other members. Poorly led and run unions include 1) Major League Baseball's player association, which protected drug and steroid users, which hurt the majority of their members who didn't want to use steroids, but were pressured to do so to match performance with members who did. This also damaged league reputation, and possibly revenues. 2) NBA's players union, which allows reprehensible conduct by a few players to once again besmirch the reputation of the many well behaved NBA players. Once again, with negative results on league image and potential revenues. 3) UAW, in a misguided zeal to "protect jobs", used their enormous power to negotiate contracts which actually destroyed the majority (hundreds of thousands )of their jobs by making their employers economic failures. Short sided execs agreed to a "jobs bank" to pay laid off auto workers $100k per year not to work, and the most lucrative retirement and medical packages known to man on an enormous retiree group supported by a steadily shrinking work force. Costs per worker are in excess of $100 per hour while their top competition (Toyota, Honda, Nissan) spend $35 per hour on workers at their U.S. plant (well in excess of average blue collar pay in the U.S.). If the UAW followed their "fiduciary" responsibilities, they would pursue fair wages to create more jobs for their members and more competitive U.S. auto companies. But actually I don't think any union has true "fiduciary" responsibilities, as the leaders need to do what members want, even if it's short sighted and counter productive. And I can't rip on people who defend dog fighting, no matter how disgusting I regard it, because I eat meat and cows, chickens, etc aren't treated much better. [/ QUOTE ] DesertCat, Your perceptions of unions is completely ass backwards from any possible standard of judgment. NFLPA: -no self respecting union lets its member get suspended without being convicted of a crime. This is a testament to the lack of power of the NFLPA. -No self respecting union allows its employment contracts to be terminated without cause and without compensation. The fact that the NFLPA allows this is a joke. -The owners are making remarkable profits. It is a union's job to squeeze every bit of profits out of a business and redistribute them to its members. The fact that this does not happen (as it does in baseball) is a testament to how weak the union is. MLBPA: The MLBPA is the strongest union in the world. Not the best sports union... the strongest union in the world. SportsCenter told you that they were weak because they didn't clean the game of steroids. Stewart Scott does not understand union law. Setting a precedent of opening a collective bargaining agreement midcontract to make a concession would be unbelievably irresponsible on the unions part. Also, it is their legal responsibility to listen to their constituents. If their members had been clamoring for a steroid policy then they would have gotten a steroid policy. It is not the union's job to do whats best for the game. It is the unions job to do what its members want it to do. UAW: You said "Short sided execs agreed to a "jobs bank" to pay laid off auto workers $100k per year not to work, and the most lucrative retirement and medical packages known to man." If I worked for GM I would think that this was a pretty sweet deal. The UAW was bad for the auto industry. Hell, it was bad for America. But they got the most money and benefits for their members in times of prosperity and when times were good they were an extremely powerful union. I don't like unions. I think they are bad for America and I think that the UAW is a poignant example of why they are bad. But the contracts that they negotiated in the 70s and 80s were nothing short of masterful. 
|
|
#202
07-19-2007, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vick indicted by the feds
[ QUOTE ]
Still the dude has to be superrich. I think he may move to a country where dog fighting is legal, maybe even somewhere where it is revered. Eventually he may become king of that country and then invade the US out of a sense of retribution. [/ QUOTE ] From reading the indictment, it doesn't sound like he is very good at what he does. He is like the andy beal of the dog fighting world.
|
|
#204
07-19-2007, 01:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vick indicted by the feds
[ QUOTE ]
In order to prove the relative worth of animals I will invoke Maslow's hierarchy of needs:  Maslow's argument is that in order for higher needs to be fulfilled the base needs must first be met. The need for food (provided by cows) is more important than the need for love/companionship (provided by dogs). A rational person would want to fill their base needs first. Therefore it is rational to believe that cows are more important to mankind than dogs. It would be irrational to protect a species because society has told you that they are more worthy of your support. I believe that, even if in some alternate universe you could prove that the dog is more valuable than the cow, it would still be irrational to believe that the torture of one animal is reprehensible while the torture of another animal is acceptable. I think my dictionary is just fine. [/ QUOTE ] Hysterical. I think the whole pseudo-logic was enough to stand alone, but throw in the Maslow and take it to the next level. Very nice.
|
|
#205
07-19-2007, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vick indicted by the feds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hoya, how do you feel about the practice of eating dog? [/ QUOTE ] The thing I like about political argument that is so lacking in sports arguments is that with politics it always comes down to how the other guy is a hypocrite. If he really believed X, like he says he does, he couldn't do Y, like he evidently does. And while the speaker is willing to confess to unnamed human frailties, at least he would never do Y (and compound the sin by simultaneously pretending to believe X). It's really wonderful, and I'm glad to see it in Sporting Events. [/ QUOTE ] This is probably a fair criticism, but stop and think about why this is, for a second. What other format could an argument really take? At some point you start with axioms, and these really aren't up for debate. I have a few core axioms, and these I simply cannot defend. We can't argue about these. I build all of my beliefs and positions from these axioms, and yours may be different, but they aren't subject to change. So, what does that leave? It only leaves two types of argument. Either you have to show that I am coming to an irrational conclusion BASED on those axioms, or that I selectively apply my axioms in some cases and do not apply them in other cases. If my axiom is "Hurting smart animals is bad" I can't be in favor of the pork industry (to give a simplified example, not implying anyone has that as an axiom). So, its not some grand insight that all political debate eventually boils down to pointing out that the other guy is a hypocrite. Thats really all there IS to argue about. If all of his beliefs are entirely coordinated and self-consistent, and he applies his axioms perfectly, then all you can do is "agree to disagree" and move on, because axioms aren't fair game. So, you have to show he is inconsistent, and thus, hypocritical.
|
|
#206
07-19-2007, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vick indicted by the feds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Still the dude has to be superrich. I think he may move to a country where dog fighting is legal, maybe even somewhere where it is revered. Eventually he may become king of that country and then invade the US out of a sense of retribution. [/ QUOTE ] From reading the indictment, it doesn't sound like he is very good at what he does. He is like the andy beal of the dog fighting world. [/ QUOTE ] Serious reply now, I'm pretty sure that Andy Beal is considered one of the best HU Limit Hold 'em players in the world at this point.
|
|
#207
07-19-2007, 01:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vick indicted by the feds
tuk,
Michael Vick was a bad QB before all this. Now he has the status of "could have been" instead of "wasted talent"
|
|
#208
07-19-2007, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vick indicted by the feds
[ QUOTE ]
If all of his beliefs are entirely coordinated and self-consistent, and he applies his axioms perfectly, then all you can do is "agree to disagree" and move on, because axioms aren't fair game. [/ QUOTE ] And since you can't possibly do this... Er... My main point was that this digression is inappropriate for this forum. Sue me. I can be indirect. Secondarily, I offer that one may grow from trying to construe one's opponent's arguments as entirely consistent, your job being to see how and why he grants dispensations (as opposed to contradicting himself) rather than choose a level of abstraction that reduces his arguments to absurdity. This may or may not be a big insight. I'm not keeping score.
|
|
#209
07-19-2007, 01:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vick indicted by the feds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If all of his beliefs are entirely coordinated and self-consistent, and he applies his axioms perfectly, then all you can do is "agree to disagree" and move on, because axioms aren't fair game. [/ QUOTE ] And since you can't possibly do this... Er... My main point was that this digression is inappropriate for this forum. Sue me. I can be indirect. [/ QUOTE ] So you have an axiom that digressions are inappropriate in Sporting Events and you make this post? Why don't you take this [censored] to ATF. Hypocrite.
|
|
#210
07-19-2007, 02:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vick indicted by the feds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If all of his beliefs are entirely coordinated and self-consistent, and he applies his axioms perfectly, then all you can do is "agree to disagree" and move on, because axioms aren't fair game. [/ QUOTE ] And since you can't possibly do this... Er... My main point was that this digression is inappropriate for this forum. Sue me. I can be indirect. [/ QUOTE ] So you have an axiom that digressions are inappropriate in Sporting Events and you make this post? Why don't you take this [censored] to ATF. Hypocrite. [/ QUOTE ] What's ATF? Here's an exercise for you btw: come up with three different ways how one might make such a post without being a hypocrite (not saying I'm not one).
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
