|
Post by paulus on Apr 16, 2019 19:04:09 GMT -5
And...POLLS are divisive ๐ค Nah, the poll was fine and we were all having a nice time discussing the merits of the case both ways until a couple of people resorted to ascribing/implying motives to people's voting choices that simply don't exist, in a childish attempt to reduce the opposing argument. A logical fallacy called Bulverism. In rare and beautiful cases, it can make the proponent look very silly indeed. Still laughing at boffo 's post
|
|
|
Post by Ashton Fox on Apr 16, 2019 19:10:27 GMT -5
๐๐
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2019 20:00:17 GMT -5
And...POLLS are divisive ๐ค Nah, the poll was fine and we were all having a nice time discussing the merits of the case both ways until a couple of people resorted to ascribing/implying motives to people's voting choices that simply don't exist, in a childish attempt to reduce the opposing argument. Aย logical fallacy called Bulverism. In rare and beautiful cases, it can make the proponent look very silly indeed. Still laughing atย boffo 's postย There is a term we use in America. Go @!$# yourself. I don't know how to underline it but you could look it up if you want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2019 22:07:53 GMT -5
Just here to show my support for the concept that a European would choose the American golfer over the American golfer because they're anti-American. These are the kind of things that keep the internet great after so many years. lmfao Edit: just something that interests me, I don't think you would have seen moral character insults in a sporting debate even 10 years ago, it seems to be a new and increasingly prevalent phenomenon. Possibly (obvious speculation here) because it's encouraged on social media? E.g. more rudeness or extreme comments, while also making yourself out to be oh so virtuous = more reactions, whether via likes, follows or angry replies? Not sure, but these non-sequitur leaps from "we have different favourites in a sport" to "I will expose you to the world for being a secretly evil scumbag" are f***ing insane. Insults calling the opposing side stupid, stubborn, naive, a total tw*t etc., those are all at least reasonable whether they're valid or not since the challenge is on the idea rather than fundamental moral virtue, but it's mindblowing seeing people going from zero to "you're a bigot" in 0.8 seconds, which you'd never have seen just a few years agoa in this kind of discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2019 1:02:25 GMT -5
Not sure how many Brits / snooker lovers there are here but I'd liken this debate to the one about Stephen Hendry vs Ronnie O'Sullivan.... Same view for me with Mike Tyson, his A game was a level above any other heavyweight's A game in history imo... really tho? Tyson ahead of Sugar Ray, Ali, Marciano...?? Why do you hate black people? Actually have to admit I let out a smug little chuckle at the (patently ridiculous) insinuation that your vote for Jack betrayed your underlying racism, because that's basically exactly what you did to me when twisting my silly, utterly surreal mermaid bunker joke into some kind of attack against women. Nobody likes being accused of something they didn't do, or of being something they aren't, especially when there's a moral dimension. If something appears innocent, it's much better and more pleasant for all involved if you assume it's innocent and don't jump straight to calling into question their moral character - and especially not to contradict their genuine personal intentions.
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Apr 17, 2019 2:03:58 GMT -5
I haven't voted yet because I can't decide! Which is unlike me, the opinionated so and so that I am But I will say I'm not a huge fan of using majors or overall achievements as a barometer for greatness. It could quite easily be argued Nicklaus had much stronger opposition than woods, but then the "domination" aspect for woods is convincing, however a comeback could be that if he was pressured by a couple of other greats, he might have faltered in some of those major wins. I think I'm edging towards Nicklaus, but I'll vote when I'm sure! PS- if woods' back holds out, I can see him winning 2-3 more majors over the next say 8. If it can hold out another 5-6 years, especially with his (very sensible) policy of not going full clubhead speed anymore, I could see him beating that oldest major winner mark.
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Apr 17, 2019 2:15:23 GMT -5
Just here to show my support for the concept that a European would choose the American golfer over the American golfer because they're anti-American. ย These are the kind of things that keep the internet great after so many years. Hahaha. That was a doozy, wasn't it...
|
|
|
Post by Celtic Wolf on Apr 17, 2019 2:34:34 GMT -5
I would say Tiger is better, but I hardly watch golf and don't know enough about Nicklaus to judge hence I've not voted. Also I don't really go for these GOAT polls as many times 2 different eras are being compared. You see these polls in football and Pele, Maradona,Messi and Ronaldo's names getting banded about. But they're different eras, so there's a lot more to take into account than stats.
|
|
|
Post by AFCTUJacko on Apr 17, 2019 3:19:34 GMT -5
It's also very new millennium that we MUST decide who is better between them, and we can't just agree that they are both awesome but it's impossible to truly compare.
So, in conclusion, Sandy Lyle is the GOAT, or at least he would be if I didn't hate the Scots ( )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2019 3:42:36 GMT -5
The one thing we can never debate is who cheated on their wife more.
no way to know how much Jack did or didn't do. No stats ๐
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Apr 17, 2019 4:19:06 GMT -5
really tho? Tyson ahead of Sugar Ray, Ali, Marciano...?? Why do you hate black people? Actually have to admit I let out a smug little chuckle at the (patently ridiculous) insinuation that your vote for Jack betrayed your underlying racism, because that's basically exactly what you did to me when twisting my silly, utterly surreal mermaid bunker joke into some kind of attack against women. Nobody likes being accused of something they didn't do, or of being something they aren't, especially when there's a moral dimension. If something appears innocent, it's much better and more pleasant for all involved if you assume it's innocent and don't jump straight to calling into question their moral character - and especially not to contradict their genuine personal intentions. Hmmm, OK as you want to bring up a little but of nonsense from 6 months ago that I thought we agreed in a PM to put behind us.... Let me compare the two cases that are "basically exactly" the same.... 1) I and some others here voted for Jack -> implied/told that's because we're old/racist/anti-american (attacking the person/motive, not the idea) 2) You wrote some words that painted a picture of a fictional mermaid bunker getting balls "rammed into her" from all angles -> told that it came across as a bit sexist (not just by me I might add), also told that the joke was funny, but perhaps this forum not the place for it (attacking the idea, not the person/motive) The mental gymnastics required to make those logically equal is quite something ๐ I consider all this nonsense too ๐
|
|
|
Post by Ashton Fox on Apr 17, 2019 5:06:53 GMT -5
Sounds like someone is a little self-conscious that they took something so personally when the post clearly said this isn't an attack on anyone here....
Usually, when people are so hyper-sensitive, that usually means they feel guilty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2019 5:43:07 GMT -5
Why do you hate black people? Actually have to admit I let out a smug little chuckle at the (patently ridiculous) insinuation that your vote for Jack betrayed your underlying racism, because that's basically exactly what you did to me when twisting my silly, utterly surreal mermaid bunker joke into some kind of attack against women. Nobody likes being accused of something they didn't do, or of being something they aren't, especially when there's a moral dimension. If something appears innocent, it's much better and more pleasant for all involved if you assume it's innocent and don't jump straight to calling into question their moral character - and especially not to contradict their genuine personal intentions. Hmmm, OK as you want to bring up a little but of nonsense from 6 months ago that I thought we agreed in a PM to put behind us.... Let me compare the two cases that are "basically exactly" the same.... 1) I and some others here voted for Jack -> implied/told that's because we're old/racist/anti-american (attacking the person/motive, not the idea) 2) You wrote some words that painted a picture of a fictional mermaid bunker getting balls "rammed into her" from all angles -> told that it came across as a bit sexist (not just by me I might add), also told that the joke was funny, but perhaps this forum not the place for it (attacking the idea, not the person/motive) The mental gymnastics required to make those logically equal is quite something ๐ I consider all this nonsense too ๐ lol, amazing how you only cite your reasonable comments and didn't mention the one and only thing my comment was referring to, i.e. you having the nerve to contradict my genuine intention and tell me what my joke was "really" about, i.e. that my objective was to attack women in general. And that is exactly the same situation. I was hoping with you experiencing from the other side you'd gain a bit of perspective that what you said to me was totally out of order, but apparently not.
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Apr 17, 2019 6:01:50 GMT -5
I thought we'd agreed to disagree and move on without further animosity Larry... in a polite & friendly PM that I initiated... see that you were less genuine & are still stewing some months later. Ashton will be able to tell you what that usually means...
Moving on from this nonsense now - love you all x
|
|
|
Post by stokie1947 on Apr 17, 2019 6:04:34 GMT -5
although i voted for Jack having seen both of them in action is it fair to compare pass with present in any sport
|
|