THE CONVERSATION IS OVER B/C YOU KNOW YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT — YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE HAD ANY ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE B/C YOU’VE SAID THAT YOU DON’T CARE WHAT ATHLETES DO OFF THE COURT B/C THEY SERVE YOUR MAIN PURPOSE — ENTERTAINMENT.

The best part is this…

I guess you don’t know Godwin’s law as well as you thought…what a cop-out buddy!!!

Godwin’s law simply says that the probability of a comparison involving Hitler/Nazis in an online argument reaches 1 after some time.

Some folks invoke it to say that an argument is over.

However, Godwin’s Law passes no judgment on whether the comparison is incorrect or correct.

Look it up smarty pants.

INSTEAD, You have committed what they call Quirk’s exception and simultaneously started an ad hominem argument.

Here’s a quote from the wiki article…

“It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin’s law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as “Quirk’s Exception”)”

It’s really beside the point b/c you simply don’t understand the premise you set forth by saying I can’t judge Lance b/c I don’t know him.

I already agreed that Vick’s acts were heinous. OJ’s are heinous as well. Both are now proven criminals. The graveness of their acts is not the issue.

The point is…working from your premise, Vick, OJ, and Lance all fall into the same category despite the obvious difference in the seriousness of the charges against them.

THEY ARE ALL ATHLETES WHO HAVE CHECKERED PASTS WHO WERE THEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME (ANY CRIME).

The preponderance of guilt is against all of them.

Now don’t give me that shit about Lance doesn’t have a checkered past or his past doesn’t compare to OJ’s and Vick’s. I have stated the facts ad nauseam and I contend that Lance does have a checkered past and plenty of NCAA coaches have now agreed with me. As for his past indiscretions not being as bad as Vick’s or OJ’s…I agree with that. BUT to that I reply…well then…his charge for sexual assault isn’t as serious or as bad…as kidnapping/robbery or killing multiple dogs.

The comparison fits. They’re just on different levels.

To be sure, they fit perfectly for this premise.

I could have used T.O. but he didn’t fit as well. No crimes committed.

Its called inductive reasoning. You take past occurences (behavior) that you know to be true and predict/assume what happens next. Plenty of intelligent people do it, you could try it.

T.O. has been a bad teammate in the past. If this season…a dispute arises in Buffalo between Trent Edwards and TO, who will people blame — even before all the facts are presented?

If you say that you’ll reserve your judgment — give me a break…

I don’t buy it.

You’ll pass judgment on TO and you won’t care either way, b/c he’ll probably help Buffalo’s passing game out tremendously (despite being a team cancer) and that entertains you.

The argument is over now b/c you picked a fight with me for judging a kid while you don’t really care how I or even you yourself judge him…and then you also lost the fight for committing a Quirk’s Exception.

That is all…

SIMPLY PUT…

You have no ground to stand on now.

You truly have no reason for arguing with me since you’re really don’t care about anything other than Lance’s athletic prowess.

What’s the point of you having a beef with me for passing judgment while the jury’s still out on the kid…when all you’re going to do is pass judgment once the jury/judge has already made its decision…but then you’re going to throw out that judgment b/c you, “could give two shits about what [he] does in his spare time” b/c he entertains you on the court.

In other words, why does it matter when or if I pass judgment on the kid since you don’t care about his innocence or guilt either way.

He could have 10 paternity suits against him, and you would still like him b/c he’s great at basketball.

Seriously, I feel confident in saying that the world needs more people like myself and less shiftless yokels like you.

You’re hilarious, absolutely hilarious.

Let me start by saying that I must commend you.

You should be canonized b/c YOU’RE (not YOUR, learn the difference) a saint. That or a Pollyanna…I’m not sure which is worse…

Go look it up smarty pants.

“When any person is charged with committing a crime…do you sit there and say…Well I don’t know them personally, so I can’t judge them.”

Why, yes, that’s exactly what I do, I am not the jury, henceforth I prefer to approach things in the same manner as our forefathers and presume innocence until proven otherwise…”

So, after all the previous incidents Vick was involved in…and the dogfighting allegations came in…you expect me (or anyone else for that matter) to believe you sat back and said…

“Giminy Christmas!! What a horrible situation!! Gosh, I hope the authorities will bring the dastardly villains responsible for this to justice. Surely Michael Vick is not behind it. He has been such an upstanding citizen for such a long time.”

If so…congratulations — you are a Pollyanna and a moron to boot.

And the Michael Vick comparison is not bad. I could have used any person who was charged with a crime and also had a history of other suspicious incidents surrounding them.

I could have used OJ, and he was proven innocent in a court of law — but I KNOW he killed his wife and Goldman.

You see… I passed judgment on a person that I don’t know. It’s crazy I know.

Again, I have to ask…when OJ was charged in the kidnapping/robbery in Vegas, did you just sit back and assume he was innocent until proven guilty?

If you did, then it’s too bad OJ’s lawyers couldn’t get you to serve on the jury. Maybe you could have helped OJ get acquitted again.

““Saying you shouldn’t judge someone that you don’t know is completely ludicrous.”

Really? Seriously? I can’t believe you’ve underminded you’re argument to the point of making a statements like this. Have you ever heard the phrase “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover?””

My apologies…I should have said: Saying you can’t judge someone that you don’t know is completely ludicrous.

And I didn’t UNDERMINE (Underminded is a band and a lousy one at that, NOT a word btw…) my argument.

Here’s where my comment about a judge in a court of law comes in…

A judge reviews facts, and passes judgment on a complete stranger. If the judge KNOWS that person, he has to recuse himself in most circumstances. That is the way it is in a court of law and the way it should be.

I didn’t judge a book by its cover…I have seen enough disparaging chapters of Lance’s life to pass judgment in my opinion.

Here are the facts:

Lance was suspended from his high school and his team for 5 days and 3 games respectively. Why? Because, he fought with a teammate. The teammate was sent to the hospital for treatment of hand lacerations because Lance threw him through a glass table.

Lance has an illegitimate daughter.

Lance argues with refs and teammates on the court. He even argued with the refs at the McDonald’s All American game. Seriously, who does that? You have to be off your rocker to argue with refs at an all-star game that has virtually no consequences…

Lance has been CHARGED with Sexual assault.

With all the other incidents, I think Lance is guilty. I assume that he is guilty because I have seen past behavior where he has acted irresponsibly and impetuously.

You want sources…give me a break. Go look up the school records, hospital records — the teammate he fought is named Devon McMillan, video of the McDonald’s game is surely available somewhere — youtube?, and here’s a quick blurb on the sexual assault arrest:

http://www.inquisitr.com/24977/lance-stephenson-arrested-oct08-charged-with-sexual-abuse/

I especially like the quote from that blurb — not sure whose quote it is but let’s assume it came from one of the three defendants. Those sound like some good guys to me. Some really great company Lance is keeping at Lincoln HS…

And finally…there is this gem.

“However, I left my research to his on the court stuff because that’s all i care about. I don’t care that he has sex, I don’t care that he’s gotten into fights, these are silly things that have no bearing at the end of the day on his job. Many of the all-time greats have illegitimate children, fight with teammates, primadonna behavior, and on and on, but at the end of the day they are paid to entertain us on the court/gridiron/diamond/rink/etc only. Why anyone would give two shits about what an 18 year old does in his spare time is beyond me, but that nonsense sure seems to interest you.”

With this statement, you lose your status as a Saint or a Pollyanna.

You have UNDERMINED your own argument.

You say that you don’t pass judgment…everyone is innocent until proven guilty, right. Then you say, Vick got what he deserved…So you passed judgment once a jury said he was guilty. You waited until the jury made its judgment and then you made your own.

BUT THEN, you say “why anyone would care what an 18 year old does in his spare time is beyond me…”

If I’m not mistaken Vick didn’t hold the dogfights on the football field…Get it?
Spare time…

So even if a hall of fame athlete is shown to be morally and ethically bankrupt — you still don’t care? B/c he entertains you??!!!???

Obviously you’ve contradicted yourself here. You pick and choose the guys you want to support at your own convenience NOT by some moral/ethical standard…that’s faulty logic at its worst.

The truth of the matter is, you didn’t like Vick before any of the dogfighting stuff happened and you don’t like him now after everything happened and you think he “got what he deserved” …but you like Lance for some reason — b/c he’s entertaining I guess — and you’re defending him to no end and you think I’m a jerk for judging him.

Get it together man…

They’re people who play a sport and should be held accountable for what they do on/off the court. The two arenas should not be separated b/c they entertain us in one way and completely disappoint us in another.

Again, the crimes that Vick committed are pretty heinous. Of course, groping and feeling up a girl against her will…isn’t a nice thing to do either.

I have no argument with you that Lance and Vick’s legal problems are different.

Vick’s mistakes/problems are on a completely different scale.

However, both Lance and Vick committed acts that served as suspicious precedents.

With Vick you had a few behavioral problems that left him with fines from the NFL, including the water bottle incident at the Atlanta airport.

This led most people that I know to consider Vick “guilty until proven innocent” rather than the opposite when allegations came out even though Vick proclaimed his innocence.

This is exactly what has happened with Coach Calipari and Lance Stephenson.

Lance was first involved in a fight with his teammate. He hospitalized the kid and ended up being suspended for a few games by his team. Then he starred in the questionable Born Ready documentary, that is until he got arrested for sexual assault.

Add in the fact that I’ve seen him act like a jerk and pout during games…and you have a preponderance of guilt against Lance.

The prior incidents are not close to the heinous acts that Vick has committed…but that’s not the point.

The point LORD2FLI made was to say that because I don’t know Lance personally, I don’t have the right to form an opinion on him and pass JUDGMENT…(there’s no ‘e’ in the word BTW).

My counterpoint was to say — That’s ridiculous. You gather information and form an opinion and pass judgment. You don’t have to know someone to do that.

In a court of the law, the judge can’t know the defendant personally — or they has to recuse themself. Their job is to review facts, and provide a judgment.

If Lance’s sexaul assault charges are dismissed, I’ll eat my words. But I’ve seen plenty of facts regarding Lance’s behavior that lead me to feel that he is guilty.

The Terps are adding talented size down low. BR hunger to win complements a bunch of guys who play hard no matter the situation… Campus is just a short ride down the ‘Pike…

Michael Vick’s legal problems and Lance’s are completely different you can not compare the two. First of all Vick was being investagated by the F.B.I. which found evidence of dog fighting and dead dogs on the property. Not to mention Vick’s guilty plea. In Lance’s case there really is no evidence it is a case of he said she said. All I’m saying is wait to make the judgement on him if he is found guilty by the court then you may have an argument but until that time you sound like a blow hard.

Excellent baiting statement, I commend you, theoretically any answer I give you is wrong and you’re hoping for a response so you can give me your predetermined answer. However, I do not know the context in which said mistakes were made, they could all be his fault or none of them may be his fault. As such, I acknowledge you are baiting me but alas, I give you no answer.

“When any person is charged with committing a crime…do you sit there and say…Well I don’t know them personally, so I can’t judge them.”

Why, yes, that’s exactly what I do, I am not the jury, henceforth I prefer to approach things in the same manner as our forefathers and presume innocence until proven otherwise. Sure, there’s room for abusing the system, but that does mean the system, nor the concept, is broken. Now, before you respond with the inevitable bad analogy I urge you to familiarize yourself with Godwin’s Law and know that I am quite familiar with it and can respond accordingly.

“For example, when Michael Vick was charged with operating a dog fighting ring…did you say…”Oh, I don’t know Michael personally, so i don’t think it’s proper to judge him.””

Speaking of bad analogies, Michael Vick was found guilty and thrown in jail for his crimes, trying to compare him to Lance Stephenson to further your own argument is like comparing apples to oranges. Anyway, moving along.

“(I’d be willing to guess that you didn’t say that. You probably like dogs (who doesn’t really?) and you immediately thought — “God, what a horrible thing to do to a dog! What’s Vick’s problem?” )”

You would be presuming, which is apparently your thing. My initial reaction was something akin to: “That’s just horrible, I hope they get to the bottom of this and punish all involved.” Never in my mind did I think did I assume Vick was guilty, I assumed the guilty would be identified in court. As it turned out Vick was guilty and that verdict has rightfully ruined his career. The man got what he deserved, but it was determined by a jury of his peers in court, not you or me.

“Saying you shouldn’t judge someone that you don’t know is completely ludicrous.”

Really? Seriously? I can’t believe you’ve underminded you’re argument to the point of making a statements like this. Have you ever heard the phrase “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover?”

“Instead, most people do a little research and form an opinion based on facts hopefully. You judge a person based on the research that you do.”

Interestingly enough, I did do my research on Lance. I’ve watched game footage/highlights, checked out his website, read boxscores, etc. However, I left my research to his on the court stuff because that’s all i care about. I don’t care that he has sex, I don’t care that he’s gotten into fights, these are silly things that have no bearing at the end of the day on his job. Many of the all-time greats have illegitimate children, fight with teammates, primadonna behavior, and on and on, but at the end of the day they are paid to entertain us on the court/gridiron/diamond/rink/etc only. Why anyone would give two shits about what an 18 year old does in his spare time is beyond me, but that nonsense sure seems to interest you.

“Or just do what you’re already doing….explain away all the facts concerning Lance and make excuses for him…”

Another baiting statement! Woot! Sir, you are on a roll! This one however I’d like to turn back to you. Please explain the context of said facts (sighting sources would be helpful as the one you’ve already cited didn’t provide much substance, just a lot of surface gloss), please try to leave the one-line statements out of your position though, because it’s the one-liners that have kept this debate open. If you’ve got evidence and facts, please present them so we can put it to rest.

“(If you’re charged with a crime, and the judge of your trial actually knows you well, he may have to recuse himself, b/c he’s already formed an opinion of you b/c of the personal knowledge he has gained from your relationship.)”

Not sure what this means or has to do with anything, but I suspect if Lance is found innocent of wrongdoing this will be your rebuttal since you’ve already determined he is the instigator and guilty of everything that happens around him.

BTW, how am I naive?

It’s much more naive to assume that all of these mistakes surrounding Lance are not his fault. It’s naive to say that you can’t judge him because you don’t know him.

When any person is charged with committing a crime…do you sit there and say…Well I don’t know them personally, so I can’t judge them.

Because, that’s what you’re saying I should do…

For example, when Michael Vick was charged with operating a dog fighting ring…did you say…”Oh, I don’t know Michael personally, so i don’t think it’s proper to judge him.”

(I’d be willing to guess that you didn’t say that. You probably like dogs (who doesn’t really?) and you immediately thought — “God, what a horrible thing to do to a dog! What’s Vick’s problem?” )

Saying you shouldn’t judge someone that you don’t know is completely ludicrous.

That my friend is the definition of being naive.

Instead, most people do a little research and form an opinion based on facts hopefully. You judge a person based on the research that you do.

You should try it.

Or just do what you’re already doing….explain away all the facts concerning Lance and make excuses for him…

To each his own I guess.

(If you’re charged with a crime, and the judge of your trial actually knows you well, he may have to recuse himself, b/c he’s already formed an opinion of you b/c of the personal knowledge he has gained from your relationship.)

Just so you know, I don’t own a bible. I don’t subscribe to organized religion.

Out of wedlock is easier to say and explain rather than saying…Lance got a girl pregnant and he has no intention of marrying her and starting a family. I guess I should have used illegitimate instead. My apologies. Both terms have the same implications.

And please don’t go a step further and assume that I’m against gay marriage since you misread me so badly before.

By all means, keep giving people the benefit of the doubt. That should work out well for you.

A better way to sum me up would be to say that I’m simply not an apologist.

I don’t make excuses for myself and I don’t accept repeated excuses from other people.

More and more, Americans are becoming more lenient and expecting less in terms of performance, responsibility from other people. We give out participation awards for everything and downplay actual achievement.

It’s sad really. More and more…it’s like everyone wants to say…It’s not your fault.

Well sometimes…and probably most of the time…IT IS YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.

In this case, it’s the media’s fault.

The media loves to muckrake, right? Well that’s pretty much true. The way they talk about Lance may be sensational but step and think about it for a second.

Is it really the media’s fault that Lance has been charged with sexual assault?

Is it the media’s fault that Lance had a fight with a teammate and sent him to the hospital…

Is it the media’s fault that Lance already has an illegitimate child at 18…

No, there’s no sensationalism there. These are statements of fact.

If you just reported the facts about Lance…and asked me what I think about this his character, I’d reply that he has very little character at this point in his life. I’d say that it seems that the fact of the matter here is — he’s made a number of mistakes. He’s young so he has time to make up for it and improve himself as a person not just as a basketball player — which is more important in my mind anyway.