This is why lockouts happen. The fans aren't willing to do what has to be done to stop them. It's really that simple.
Don't want lockouts to affect your favorite sport? Then simply stop making it your favorite sport. Burn down your local arena in order to save it. Here's some napalm.
It's really that simple, amirite????
Quote:
Because at the end of the day, we're *not* in this together.
You are the worst motivational speaker ever.
Quote:
We all have our reasons for doing what we have to do, so let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.
This sentence is *so impressive* in its logical fallaciousness that I *must* deconstruct it. I literally cannot help myself.
First of all, this sentence is constructed as a material implication: p, thus q.
The antecedent: "We all have our reasons for doing what we *have* to do" is absolutely literally logically inarguable, because it's not falsifiable. In other words: a tautology. And we all know that we cannot tell anything about a conditional with a tautology as its antecedent. Everything thus depends on the consequent. Thus, we can discard the antecedent entirely and focus on the consequent:
Let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.
Ah, what a gem. What a brilliantly conceived little troll. Holy ****, it's amazing! It contains *three separate assertions of premise!*
Premise #1: we are outraged.
Premise #2: the outrage is false.
Premise #3: we fully support the lockout.
Best of all, it begins with "let's", which is so, so smooth. It *immediately* shifts us from the field of classical logic to the field of imperative logic. An incisive call to action! LET US NOT BE OUTRAGED (ALBEIT FALSELY.)
Of course, for this imperative to be valid, *all three* of the preceding premises must also be valid. And what idiot would waste his time arguing against these premises? Especially if you have to spend this much time and effort breaking apart the sentence apart to figure out what the hell to argue first?
Don't want lockouts to affect your favorite sport? Then simply stop making it your favorite sport. Burn down your local arena in order to save it. Here's some napalm.
It's really that simple, amirite????
You are the worst motivational speaker ever.
This sentence is *so impressive* in its logical fallaciousness that I *must* deconstruct it. I literally cannot help myself.
First of all, this sentence is constructed as a material implication: p, thus q.
The antecedent: "We all have our reasons for doing what we *have* to do" is absolutely literally logically inarguable, because it's not falsifiable. In other words: a tautology. And we all know that we cannot tell anything about a conditional with a tautology as its antecedent. Everything thus depends on the consequent. Thus, we can discard the antecedent entirely and focus on the consequent:
Let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.
Ah, what a gem. What a brilliantly conceived little troll. Holy ****, it's amazing! It contains *three separate assertions of premise!*
Premise #1: we are outraged.
Premise #2: the outrage is false.
Premise #3: we fully support the lockout.
Best of all, it begins with "let's", which is so, so smooth. It *immediately* shifts us from the field of classical logic to the field of imperative logic. An incisive call to action! LET US NOT BE OUTRAGED (ALBEIT FALSELY.)
Of course, for this imperative to be valid, *all three* of the preceding premises must also be valid. And what idiot would waste his time arguing against these premises? Especially if you have to spend this much time and effort breaking apart the sentence apart to figure out what the hell to argue first?
Don't want lockouts to affect your favorite sport? Then simply stop making it your favorite sport. Burn down your local arena in order to save it. Here's some napalm.
It's really that simple, amirite????
You are the worst motivational speaker ever.
This sentence is *so impressive* in its logical fallaciousness that I *must* deconstruct it. I literally cannot help myself.
First of all, this sentence is constructed as a material implication: p, thus q.
The antecedent: "We all have our reasons for doing what we *have* to do" is absolutely literally logically inarguable, because it's not falsifiable. In other words: a tautology. And we all know that we cannot tell anything about a conditional with a tautology as its antecedent. Everything thus depends on the consequent. Thus, we can discard the antecedent entirely and focus on the consequent:
Let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.
Ah, what a gem. What a brilliantly conceived little troll. Holy ****, it's amazing! It contains *three separate assertions of premise!*
Premise #1: we are outraged.
Premise #2: the outrage is false.
Premise #3: we fully support the lockout.
Best of all, it begins with "let's", which is so, so smooth. It *immediately* shifts us from the field of classical logic to the field of imperative logic. An incisive call to action! LET US NOT BE OUTRAGED (ALBEIT FALSELY.)
Of course, for this imperative to be valid, *all three* of the preceding premises must also be valid. And what idiot would waste his time arguing against these premises? Especially if you have to spend this much time and effort breaking apart the sentence apart to figure out what the hell to argue first?
Just masterful.
--hank
So you can clearly not choose the wine in front of him?
Fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go in against HankClerval when message board credibility is on the line!'
This is why lockouts happen. The fans aren't willing to do what has to be done to stop them. It's really that simple. Because at the end of the day, we're *not* in this together. We all have our reasons for doing what we have to do, so let's drop the faux outrage over a lockout we fully support.
You are delusional. I don't support the lock out and i'll be pissed if the season doesn't start on time. Just because I renewed way back in April doesn't mean for 1 second I support what they are doing. I think the NHL and NHLPA need to suck it up and get this done on or before Sept. 15th.
You are delusional. I don't support the lock out and i'll be pissed if the season doesn't start on time. Just because I renewed way back in April doesn't mean for 1 second I support what they are doing. I think the NHL and NHLPA need to suck it up and get this done on or before Sept. 15th.
This.
Also, I think they will. There're just playing hardball and we all know it. Had Bettman come out and said "We're working hard to get something done, and I can't wait to see what the PA has on the table" tha would've been a sgn of waknes on his part, o instead he went with the more conventional, albeit false "They gon do it our way or they gon be locked out on the 15th"
If the lockout does happen and games that were bought as season tickets are canceled, do we get refunded in any sort of way?
What they will probably end up doing is keeping the money on your account as a credit and applying it towards next season. If you then cancel and opt out of renewing next season, then they'll refund you the money. But I wouldn't expect a check in the mail unless you tell them you are cancelling your season tickets.
I know in 2004-05, we kept our account open and they applied the credit we accured from the missed season to the 2005-06 season.
It's nice to see an reasonable counter.... But I'm not a fan of a 3 year deal... 6-8 would be nice... I like no rollback with reduced cap idea for selfish reasons
Yeah, a 3-year deal isn't ideal, considering a new plan will have to be formed (or at least, considered) as early as next offseason, but if the choice was the 3-year deal or lockout, you gotta go with the 3 year deal.
Nice tactic by the players here....offer a reasonable deal after the public knows how unreasonable the owners offer was....get the public on their side and make the owners look like the bad guy.
Anyone who thinks the court of public opinion isnt important is kidding themselves.
From what I could tell, the players were happy to play with the current CBA anyway, so any lockout would have had the fans against the owners anyway.
And actually, with what the PA is proposing, it's doing more than getting the fans on their side. If I'm following the situation correctly, the players are saying they'll take a smaller percentage of the revenue for the next 3 years, while at the same time, proposing more revenue sharing to help out smaller markets.
So in essence, they're not only getting the fans on their side by proposing a fair offer (or fairer offer than the owners), but they're pitting the small market owners (those that take the most advantage of revenue sharing) against the large market owners.
A house divided and all that.
Last edited by Blueline Bomber: 08-14-2012 at 07:06 PM.
If I'm Gary Bettman, I am doing all in my power to get the bigger markets to agree to the general idea of the proposed NHLPA deal. It's more than fair.
What I'm concerned is that the NHL will reject this more on the basis that the owners need to win. In a sense, they almost 'have' to reject it to save face.
The NHL is in a corner here. It's going to be interesting to see how they react.
Last edited by Highway to Cap Hell: 08-14-2012 at 08:50 PM.
