Total posts: 2,481
-->
@SkepticalOne
Well, apparently you're not learning from your mistakes
No, apparently you’re not learning from theirs, if the argument was counterproductive on their part what makes you think you’re special? I mean your literally putting emphasis on the title of this thread right now.
A simple "my mistake" would prevent repitious corrections.
I’m still not convinced your repetitions are corrections in the first place, perhaps a substantial original argument would do the trick.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Probably because you’re no authority on the subject.
And who is? You?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your question could be interpreted many ways. You'll need to be more clear...
And you need to be more original in your arguments, your not contributing anything new to this discussion.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
"science" is the opposite of "taking something at face value"
Not if what’s being taken at face value corresponds with science.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
That’s not an answer to the question. You need to provide an “example,” which means by name and how many abortions she has been allowed to have while enjoying having them.
1st of all it wasn’t a question it was a request. 2nd I don’t NEED to do anything. 3rd your changing the narrative to suit you, nowhere in this thread was a name and numbers mentioned.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
My good man, just ....stop. You're embarrassing your self. Personhood is a legal distiction. Science has no authority here.
Why are you starting a circle here?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
please link to "science"
Why can’t you just take what I said at face value?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
please provide an example of someone who enjoys abortions
Someone who enjoys abortions is an example of someone who enjoys abortions, your answer is literally in your request.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what part of "lexico" qualifies as "science" ?
No part doesn’t mean it doesn’t agree with science.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
abortion is not a goal which anyone aspires to
Now we’re just going in circles because my retort to that would be what I already originally uttered which was
If that were true discussions like this wouldn’t be so prominent now would it?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you know someone who ENJOYS abortions ?
No, but I know of some people who prefer that outcome over carrying the pregnancy to term, which was the original narrative you uttered.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
please link to your personally preferred "scientific" definition of "person"
There’s nothing “personally preferred” about it because personhood isn’t a matter of preference it’s objective fact, but if you insist https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/person
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A "non-human person" refers to an entity that possesses some rights for limited legal purposes.
No legal system can define what is and isn’t a person, only science can do that, read a book.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
abortion is NOBODY'S preferred outcome
If that were true discussions like this wouldn’t be so prominent now would it?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you understand how language works ?
Don’t try me 3, we’ve had numerous discussions before so keep that same energy please, you know how that works?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Human being is a biological term, we're not talking about biology.
Yes we are, hence why we don’t refer to species other than HUMAN BEINGS as persons.
As I already pointed out, when we talk about what makes someone a person we're talking about things like the ability to feel, think, self awareness, etc. What qualifies as the criteria is whatever we value, making the term inherently subjective.
No, because as I already pointed out then that would make other species that possess those traits persons, they’re not because of one simple fact, they’re not HUMAN. Want to know what makes someone a person? Well it’s a lot simpler then you may think, it’s simply being them which is what? HUMAN, it isn’t subjective by any measure, humanity is the common denominator here, you can’t shy away from it no matter how hard you try. Honestly I can’t believe a subject like this is even entertained in the first place, it seems like it should be common knowledge that all humans are persons and all persons are humans, that correlation isn’t subjective in the slightest sense.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
What does this have to do with what I said?
Because you tried to distinguish humanity from personhood and in the same breath called personhood subjective, my quote proves that it’s OBJECTIVELY not.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Personhood is subjective and determining who and/or what qualifies is entirely a question about values
No, hence why we only refer to humans and not other species as persons because they’re OBJECTIVELY not persons.
Created:
-->
@Athias
And let me remind you that in three of their four Finals match ups, Steph and the Warriors were the victors.
And let me remind you that only one of their four Finals match ups wasn’t lopsided, funny how you distinguish Steph from the Warriors in those three out of four matchups when the distinction lies in the FMVP which Steph never was.
And while Steph Curry may not be the "better" individual player, he has the better impact on a championship paradigm.
Hence his FMVP’s (I mean FMVP 😬).
Greatness, for me at least, is based on maximizing one's team's success, which is the primary goal of organized basketball.
You mean like in 2007 when a 22 year old Bron dragged a bunch of scrubs to the finals? Or in 2015 when he took a 2-1 lead against Steph with Matthew Dellavedova as his 2nd best player? Or in 2018 when he dragged his second group of scrubs to the Finals? LeBron is the literal definition of team maximization and he’s proven time and time again that he can do more with less then Steph.
at least at the monment.
At the moment the man is going into year 20 to pass Kareem as the all-time leading scorer, so of course he’s gonna be better at the moment. Let’s see what Steph looks like in year 20 with those weak little ankles 😂 but all jokes aside prime for prime it’s not even close (although LeBron still performed at a pretty high level for a guy about to enter his 20th season, if he had a little more team success he could’ve been an MVP candidate).
You don't need my acknowledgement to validate your favoritism.
Favoritism and greatness are not synonymous.
Created:
-->
@Athias
As for Steph Curry, I propelled him high on my top 10 list because this win was rather impressive.
And still choked a 3-1 lead (1st in Finals history) to a guy you have ranked 8th behind him 🤦🏾♂️
Created:
-->
@Athias
You don't have Bill Russell on your list. 11 rings don't mean anything?
Of course it does but just like Wilt I haven’t really seen the man outside of tape. I guess I could put an asterisk to his name as an honorable mention.
Created:
-->
@Athias
1. Michael Jordan
2. LeBron James
3. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4. Magic Johnson
5. Tim Duncan
6. Shaquille O’Neal
7. Larry Bird
8. Kobe Bryant
9. Wilt Chamberlain (not too sure about this one considering I only seen him on tape)
10. Steph Curry
Created:
The Golden State Warriors Win the 2022 NBA Finals, congratulations Wardell Stephen Curry on winning his 4th ring and 1st Finals MVP.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Nah, I'm good
I thought so, I guess the dis word that’s more prevalent is dishonesty and not so much disagreement.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I'm just not going to push a discussion any further on measures with which we obviously disagree.
If disagreement turns you off so much maybe you shouldn’t engage in a DEBATE site, just saying.
Created:
-->
@Athias
That wasn’t meant just for you
Didn’t say it was.
No different notes shall be indulged.
Except the Boston Celtics winning Game 1 that is.
we’ll just agree to disagree
On a debate site? Okay sir, have it your way ✌🏾
Created:
-->
@Athias
In other news, the Boston Celtics win Game 1 of the 2022 NBA Finals.
Yes I know I’ve watched the game.
On a different note since you mentioned LeBron’s pursuit of the scoring title I’m curious to know your take on this, what do you think about him being once upon a time being in contention for that award despite missing a significant amount of games? Do you think it’s fair? Do you think the league should change its award system?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Because Russell was better basketball player despite Chamberlain having more talent and athleticism.
Not sure how a less talented player is better but (just like Curry) Wilt wasn’t clutch.
Are you going to attribute this to Russell's having Cousey and Havlicek?
Those guys did play a role yes.
what does it indicate when a series of precisely timed catastrophic events occur to the opposing team, and simultaneously have their leading scorer "choke" in a Game 7, that it took LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers seven games to win by just two possessions?
It means that in spite of Steph and Klay playing poorly Draymond was still dominant enough to keep the game within just two possessions.
The latter half of this last regular season when he prioritized the scoring title.
So who else was gonna score Russ? The difference between this year and last year is AD was hurt more than he usually is if AD was healthy I’m sure he would’ve taken that “proverbial back seat” like he did in the beginning of last season.
We can argue abstracts. I'm indicating to you that I can reciprocate with abstracts because I'm not indulging the pretense of being "objective."
But stats aren’t subjective there data and data is a collection of facts. Are you claiming that facts are subjective?
Then by that measure, LeBron is more "clutch" than Kobe Bryant despite the narratives. And I've presented you with at least three occasions where Steph Curry's performance meets your criterion.
I don’t give a damn about narratives, LeBron is more clutch than Kobe. I presented you with 9 occasions where Steph folded in the clutch (without mentioning the OT shot he missed against houston in game 4 of 2018 and his disappearance against Memphis in OT of the play-in game) and layups don’t compare to threes especially for the greatest shooter of all time.
Even Andre Iguodala concedes to that point.
He retracted that “Iguodala somewhat agreed with Ariza, saying "OK, you're right. That's mine." https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/andre-iguodala-addresses-steph-currys-nba-finals-mvp-case
You can't have it both ways: you can't reward the one who shuts down, while simultaneously attempting to reward the one who was shut down. That's what made the 2015 FMVP vote ridiculous.
I wasn’t, if FMVP went to best player on the court Bron would’ve snatched that, not Iggy and not Curry.
Maintain that argument with Steph Curry's 2016 Finals performance. As I recall, he didn't receive any Finals MVP votes then either. (And he shouldn't have.)
Not only because his team lost but because he wasn’t the best player on the court.
Only if one is trying to circumvent that process of actually winning in an attempt to gerrymander in success.
That makes no sense, we assess greatness by players attempt to WIN whether or not there successful is a separate issue.
Doesn't matter. If he has a role in selecting his teammates--and he has--then don't seek to mitigate his playoff failures by attempting to diminish his teammates.
But it does, just because he’s responsible for them being there doesn’t mean he’s responsible for there play, these are GROWN MEN they’re accountable for themselves.
I never stated that.
But you said a lack of stars is not why they lost and then went on to say how well they did to prove that point, excuse me if I put two and two together.
LeBron would have staggered Finals Appearances after Cleveland, playing poorly in 2011, playing great in 2012-2013, and playing sub-par in 2014. He wouldn't play great again until 2016, and played well in 2017, and flamed out (not in terms of box score) after game 1 of the 2018 Finals.
So what about 2011-2012? He literally had his best game that year. And why do you say he didn’t play great until 2016, because his team won the championship? In my opinion Bron was better the year prior then he was in 2016.
While true that Shaq has been part of playoff embarrassments, so has LeBron; so has many great players and teams--e.g. '91 Lakers, '95 Bulls, etc.
91 Lakers was old and 95 Bulls had a baseball not basketball MJ.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Okay, so what does it indicate when a series of precisely timed catastrophic events occur to the opposing team, and simultaneously have their leading scorer "choke" in a Game 7, that it took LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers seven games to win by just two possessions?
Seriously dude quit implementing every answer I give into your next question, if you have something to say then say it.
No one mentioned his passing ability. Deferring, does not necessarily equate to assists.
So help me out here, can you give me an example of him not being deferential and it having a negative impact on teammates? Because one thing I know is LeBron is more than willing to play off-ball he’s just not that good at it (if I’m being honest) that’s why systems usually crumble once he leaves because he is the system, you can’t just plug him into one.
And this is an example of the reason your statements aren't "objective." Employing abstracts in your arguments like "confidence," which I'm sure bears value in Sports discussions which I've said don't have to necessarily be quantifiable.
Remember when you said
Seem is not an argument;
Well neither was that, however what I said prior to what I felt was if you don’t want to argue the abstract fine but the numbers speak for themselves.
Don't beat around the bush. Are you saying yes?
Fine, yes.
Winning cannot be ignored.
Yet YOUR THE ONE that brought up the 4 of the 11 voters to cast their votes for LeBron James.
And no, while LeBron did have the higher box score, his efficiency was down.
I think Iggy’s defense had a little something to do with that, especially in game 4.
And it defeats the purpose of awarding the player most valuable to their team's success.
There’s some success in putting your team in a position where they take a 2-1 lead, and why can’t it mean awarding the best player on the floor? Is there no value in that?
Probably not, but LeBron was in fact responsible in large part for the construction of that roster, which was a tactic used to alleviate cap-space for the team he would eventually join.
I’m sorry but are we talking about LeBron the player or GM?
Nevertheless, they are NBA players and one of those players won 6th man of the year while playing for the Utah Jazz; one of those players played an instrumental part in forcing the Phoenix Suns six games in the 1st Round. One of those role players went to the conference Finals in 2019. If anything, this latest Lakers Season should demonstrate to you that stacking stars =/= success.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand this point, originally you said
Yeah, because the Cavaliers had an inferior system, not because they were short a couple of stars. Does it not strike your curiosity just a little how many of those Cavs players went on to do well on other teams, e.g. Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, George Hill, etc?
Based off you assessment of them “doing well” I took it to mean you thought they were stars and just wasn’t utilized properly in the Cavs system, my retort to that was my case as to why that’s far from the case and you seemed to agree with the “Probably not”.
How have I disrespected the late Kobe Bryant?
By emphasizing that he’s not a top 10 player, that was one of the first things I noticed when you gave me your list and I let it go because I had other things I wanted to address but now since you mention it again YES it’s disrespect.
Sorry, I don't indulge LeBron James apologism.
That’s funny since I’ve been called a LeBron hater in regards to the GOAT debate, but in all seriousness if your arguing that LeBron played with a top 15 player then who? (BTW I don’t count your top 6 player Shaquille O’Neal because he was way past his prime when LeBron had him as a teammate).
One can only play against those in the Finals who make the Finals. Wilt Chamberlain frequently lost to Bill Russell's all-time great Celtics teams, and Kareem's Bucks Teams. This no more mitigates Wilt's all-time status than it would LeBron's.
I’m not saying your competition in the Finals mitigates your status, but I think your doing more deserving players a disservice by only judging Shaq on the championships in which he was dominant, but what about when he wasn’t as dominant? I mean you said it yourself Hakeem owned Shaq (a guy you have ranked lower than LeBron BTW).
Objectivity is irrational because it presumes that one can experience in spite of one's own experience.
No, it presumes one can be honest without letting personal biases get in the way, I think the fact that I said I would love to see Steph prove me wrong proves that.
Created:
-->
@Athias
So what does it say that it took, again, a series of precisely timed catastrophic events and bricks from the opposing team's leading player to win in a Game 7 by just two possessions?
That Curry choked especially since that Game 7 was in Oracle, if it were the Q it probably would’ve been by more than two possessions.
And again, I'm critical of his not deferring to them in order to get them in rhythm, not that he doesn't defer to them, "entirely."
Honestly, it feels like we’re talking about two different players. LeBron is always looking to pass before scoring (this season being a drastic exception) so much so that he often gets criticized for that. I’ve seen countless times he had an opportunity for an easy bucket and he gives it up. He even said it himself that nothing fills him up more than someone else scoring off his pass.
I'm talking about 2012-2013 LeBron, when he was not afraid to let his teammates get involved in the offense while also seeking to be dominant--which he was.
So I guess he proved you wrong a lot earlier than the 2020-2021 season.
Going from 67-15 to 73-9 would suggest that they were "nearly as good" the year before.
You can’t just look at a teams regular season record (in that case that 73-9 was better than any Warriors team that added Durant) there was a reason Steph got unanimous MVP that year and not the year before because that was the beginning of his peak, also I think that chip he won gave him and his team confidence that probably wouldn’t have happened had a healthy Cavs team rip there hearts out the year prior.
So, in your opinion, ONLY the last shot-clock regulation period in a game's entire regulation is "clutch"? Nothing before that is "clutch"?
What if I said yes?
That apparently was not enough to convince 4 of the 11 voters to cast their votes for LeBron James.
Well if we’re ignoring who’s on the winning team would you agree that LeBron deserved FMVP over Curry?
So you did know who I was talking about. I called you Kellerman Bayless to describe your arguments as somewhat of a hodgepodge of both of their typical takes in reference to Steph Curry.
I did but I didn’t understand the correlation between the two and me, I also don’t recall either one of them saying those exact words but whatever you say man.
Does it not strike your curiosity just a little how many of those Cavs players went on to do well on other teams, e.g. Jordan Clarkson, Rodney Hood, George Hill, etc?
You and I have very different standards of well, because none of them done well enough to make any all-star teams and none of them are going to the hall of fame.
Shaquille was absolutely dominant in three straight Finals. And the reason they embarrassingly lost the fourth Finals in 2004 was that, and the late Kobe Bryant even admitted this, is that he didn't want to rely on and pass to Shaquille O'Neal. I don't blame Shaq for the 2004 Finals. Note, there's a reason Kobe Bryant isn't on my top 10 despite his winning five championships.
🤦🏾♂️ this Kobe disrespect is getting ridiculous, nonetheless is he at least in your top 15? Because if he is then I ask if you take other factors into account when you assess dominance and although Shaq dominated (most dominant force since Wilt Chamberlain) he did it with a top 15 player by his side (which LeBron never had) and against way inferior competition in the finals (especially Iverson’s 76ers).
Created:
-->
@Athias
What it does it tell you that in light of a series of catastrophic events that occurred with precision that LeBron James and the Cavaliers won that 2016 Finals in Game 7, by only two possessions
Dude really? Those two possessions the Warriors could’ve very well have won by if Steph made some of those threes he bricked.
I think he has quite a high "basketball I.Q
Yet you critique it by saying he should defer to lesser teammates 🤔.
My main criticism of LeBron James has always been his unwillingness to be deferential in order for his teammates to get into rhythm
You mean like he did when he first got to Miami? His passiveness is what cost him that championship (among other things).
He's had clutch shots here and there, in the regular season, the playoffs, and yes, the Finals.
You can easily nip this in the bud don’t stop sending me links now, I’ve yet to see it.
Yes, when one is ridiculously SELECTIVE like the final 24 seconds in regulation, you can make anyone appear to have "failed."
Yeah only some no name and the worst statistical three point shooter ever in Westbrick, that’s a large sample size.
When the Warriors and Cavaliers ran it back the following year, the Warriors had a commanding 3-1 lead against a healthy Cavaliers roster.
The Warriors were no where near as good the year before.
You can't have it both ways: either box score over a series matters more, or impact does.
The two coexist pretty often.
it's a reference to sports personalities Max Kellerman and Skip Bayless.
I get the Kellerman reference but Bayless? Really? He’s an even bigger LeBron hater than you and he would never accuse him of being the 2nd greatest player of all time.
The Cavs had no shot? Why not? Was it because they had fewer "stars" or because they had an inferior system?
Doesn’t have to be either or it could be both, but let’s be real anyone with sense knew the Cavs wasn’t going past 5 against the Warriors. That team was too loaded and Kyrie left making it one of the most lopsided finals ever.
Toronto Raptors Coach Tyronne Lue and Nick Nurse respectively have explicitly stated that their game plan was to blitz Steph Curry
Like I said I’ve seen him make tougher shots then that he had a good look he just folded because the moment was too big for him.
They had no choice but to give it to him; that's how dominant his season was.
But they had a choice when they denied him in the finals right?
Because Shaquille O'Neal was more impactful in his team's championship runs than LeBron is.
LeBron was the first FMVP to comeback from 3-1 against a 73-9 team (but wait there’s more) and lead all statistical categories. Not to mention his triple double in game 7. What impact did Shaq leave that resembles anything remotely close to that? Often times teams would hack a Shaq and Lakers would have to depend on Kobe to close for them. Shaq even said himself that once LeBron passes Kareem he would declare him as GOAT although I strongly disagree with him there.
Because there's no experience you'll have, or any perspective you maintain, where YOU ARE NOT THE SUBJECT.
So what are you saying facts are an illusion?
Created:
-->
@Athias
I actually think his critics are bit too hard on him.
How is that when YOUR THE ONE that called him overrated? Your a critic too as far as I can tell.
I don't think the machine behind LeBron James will allow the narrative to focus on Steph's possibly eclipsing LeBron James in total championships
The only reason I made that argument is because you posed the question
How does this affect LeBron James?
Which I thought came somewhat out of left field, you mention the machine behind him but it shouldn’t affect him anymore then it should affect any other player that’s not in the finals. With that being said I think it would’ve made more sense if you asked that in regards to Jimmy Butler since he had the best chance of making the finals for players that’s not there.
So, in your opinion, ONLY the last shot-clock regulation period in a game's entire regulation is "clutch"? Nothing before that is "clutch"?
There’s other clutch situations like Bron’s block in game 7 of the 2016 finals, I just brought up the shots because that was the only stat I had handy at the time and he’s the GREATEST SHOOTER EVER so it seemed more than appropriate to ask for a clutch shot here and there, and the fact that he’s been in those situations 9 times and failed in each of them can’t be ignored.
They were still losing Game 1 of the 2015 Finals before Kyrie exited with knee injury.
That’s one game, do you really believe had Kyrie stayed healthy he and LeBron would allow that to continue throughout the remainder of the series? Hell no, Bron and Love without Kyrie probably would’ve been enough to get the job done.
As poorly as Steph Curry played, he still played better than Draymond Green.
Your forgetting how great Draymond was in that game 7
Look closely at Draymond’s numbers then Steph’s. You probably would’ve thought it was the other way around since Dray was never accused of being a scorer and Steph (the 1st unanimous MVP in NBA history) broke the record for most 3’s in a season, won the scoring title, and did all of that by joining the 50 40 90 club.
Okay, Kellerman Bayless.
Feel free to explain that one for me.
Why did KD's being there make it worse?
Because the finals odds were even more lopsided, the Cavs literally had no shot.
You mean when he was blitzed and chased after Klay went down?
🥱 Excuses, excuses, fact of the matter is we’ve seen countless times Steph take and make shots way tougher than that only difference is he made them when it didn’t really count for much and he never made one in a close out game situation with the game on the line.
it doesn't make Curry's 2016 MVP case any less deserving.
I didn’t say it did, remember when I brought up all his impressive stats earlier? That’s because I recognize talent when I see it. I have absolutely no issue with Curry when it comes to the regular season, it’s the postseason where there’s a massive drop off. My argument is that you can’t accuse the media of having an agenda against Curry when they granted him an honor that nobody in NBA history achieved.
Lakers recruit an injury prone Star, and constructed the oldest team in NBA.
That was this season not last season, they still managed to take a 2-1 lead to the Western Conference Champions with a banged up AD (eventually completely injured).
So?
Why do you rank him ahead of Bron?
Far from it, and beside "Objectivity" is irrational.
Care to explain that one as well?
The notion that he isn't is the bad joke.
I hope he enjoys that Magic Johnson award because it very well may be the only postseason individual accolade he’ll achieve, you say
politics and agendas were behind his snubs.
But it seems like they made that award tailor made for him.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Curry has two of the highest fourth-quarter scores in the history of the NBA Finals.
That doesn’t make him clutch. Especially since not all 4th quarter situations are created equal, in some instances it’s garbage time. Since you want to link me to stats how about I return the favor https://mobile.twitter.com/bball_ref/status/1139377970156429317
So don’t bring up any of his finals to me. You mentioned earlier that he should’ve gotten FMVP over Iggy that’s a subject for another day so I won’t argue it but his 1st ring was against a team that had nobody but LeBron on it. His 2nd trip to the finals he played awful in game 7 and had his team won Draymond would’ve gotten FMVP over him but this is about crunch time not the whole game right? So here you go https://youtu.be/wgVOgGLtPtc
His 3rd he and his whole squad flew to the Hamptons to recruit KD (because the 2nd greatest player of all time humbled the former unanimous MVP and took his heart out his chest) where he rode shotgun to form what some may call the greatest team of all time. Did he have something to do with that? Sure, but the whole league was lopsided once KD joined them where it isn’t even fair to bring up anything good he did or accomplished. His 4th was like a similar situation to his 1st except worse because KD was there. His 5th he could’ve showed the world something by making a clutch game winning shot but he bricked it as usual but hey he’s the greatest shooter of all time so I guess we can’t say anything critical about him right? Like I said he still has a chance to prove the naysayers wrong but until I see him hit a clutch shot like Ray Allen did in game 6 of the 2013 Finals, he will always be a big choker in my eyes.
But I suspect politics and agendas were behind his snubs.
The same politics and agendas that made him the 1st unanimous MVP in NBA history? Even before the 9 NBA greats (from your list not mine) greater than him?
I state this because the Lakers had such a precipitous drop off after that bubble championship
That precipitous drop off was largely due to injuries to two of the Lakers key players, do me a favor and name a team that sustained the same amount of playoff success without a healthy roster resembling the lakers situation in 2021.
LeBron James has fewer championships than Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Magic Johnson, Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul Jabar, and the narrative still suggests that he's the "second greatest player of all time."
True but there are some guys that put those guys ahead of LeBron for that reason as well.
7. LeBron James
In case you didn’t know Shaq has played on more teams than anybody else in your top 10? On the top of your head could you even guess how many? Could you guess how many times he’s been SWEPT? He’s leading in that category as well as far as your top 10 list is concerned.
There's always bias, but that's okay, because we're discussing sports.
I resent that, I think my analysis is pretty objective, but you might’ve been speaking for yourself because this notion that Steph is clutch is just a bad take.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Who are your picks?
Boston in 7
Who do you want to win?
I picked Boston because I don’t believe in Steph come crunch time but I would love to see the greatest shooter of all time prove me wrong with his 1st FMVP.
How does this affect LeBron James?
LeBron James legacy as the 2nd greatest basketball player of all time is pretty much set (him passing Kareem next season might enhance it to some folks) but if anything comes close to challenging it this upcoming finals it’s if Steph’s Warriors win because he would then tie James in championships with a chance of passing him (considering his age and collection of talent around him).
his performance and "all-time status" as a basketball player are overrated.
Just out of curiosity where do you have James ranked all-time as a basketball player?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Thus, the hypocrisy of many of those who claim to be "pro-choice." If they truly maintained a "pro-choice" position, they would extend the principle at all times. But to do this would shed light on the arbitrarily selected division at which legal "life" begins.
Which is a good argument (can’t deny that) but there’s another side of this issue that I feel needs to be addressed more often. I take it your pro-life but what about the life of the mother argument that most lifers make an exception for, you argued that arbitrary delineations is why the viability argument is flawed but so is the health of the mother argument because one can argue that with every pregnancy a woman’s health is at risk, do you mean to tell me that the government should interfere and decide a point where that risk is worth it? That sounds like a cruel invasive violation to me. If you don’t like that argument then what about the miscarriage argument? You mean to tell me that if a woman that planned on carrying her child to term and ends up miscarrying the law should do a murder investigation on? Does that sound like an ethical thing to do to a woman after she just lost her child? These are the questions that need answers if we’re ever going to go the route of making abortion illegal because looking at it through one lens alone isn’t practical/sustainable from a legislation perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
Prove it!
You proved it when you sent me that link, I literally copied and pasted that quote from you. When you deny easily proven stuff like this that’s when you know your being unreasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
What do you think potentially gets judged to go to hell? The answer is a soul. This is basic Christian lore.
True but rehabilitation has nothing to do with that, as far as I know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
First of all, you are again confusing the act with the effect.
No I’m not, I was arguing about the effect all along you took it to mean act.
And BTW, since when is torture moral?
The morality (or lack thereof) of torture and the many colors of life isn’t always absolute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I don’t even get what you’re trying to say.
I’m saying the infinite torture is the punishment for the infinite death that results from murder, so it’s fair play.
Created:
Posted in:
--> @Polytheist-Witch
Knowing I may not have put my thoughts down well doesn't make me stupid it makes me actually a little more aware of what I'm saying.
Not aware enough to actually put your thoughts down well.
And now I know that you're trolling so thanks for clearing that all up.
Clearing things up is the last thing a troll would do so maybe your the troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You're defending religious views and when called out on it you say we don't know your religion.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive you can defend a religious view without being apart of that religion. I’m sure there are scriptures in The Bible that even you can agree with, like treat people the way you want to be treated (or something along those lines) any decent thinking individual can get behind that, doesn’t make you a Christian by any stretch.
Then you're saying you don't know people are talking about a soul but they're talking about the afterlife.
They also talked about rehabilitation that made me question if they were talking about life as we know it.
You're either trolling or stupid.
Coming from the guy that said
I don't know if that makes any sense but.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You're trolling at this point.
And you came to that conclusion based off what? Anybody can make a claim, but can you back it up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Your question was a false dichotomy when it comes to the soul.
How was I supposed to know your argument was in reference to the soul? You didn’t ask the soul rehabilitation question until AFTER I already asked mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
While it misses the point of what I said about rehabilitation versus eternal damnation.
Did it? Because when I asked for clarification you answered the question with a question of your own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Can a soul be rehabilitated?
Through eternal damnation? Maybe
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Rehabilitation versus eternal damnation, this is what it really comes down to.
What’s the comparison here life or death?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Effects matter, but people are held account for their actions, which is exactly how it should be.
Yes, because of the EFFECT of those actions.
And no, ending a finite lifetime is not an infinite effect.
I didn’t say it was, I said the EFFECT of ending that finite lifetime (death) is infinite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Hell is infinite torture for a finite crime.
What makes a crime finite? Because if the crime is murder then the effect of that crime is infinite, unless the dead is resurrected. Is that what your claiming? Because if you are then there goes your infinite torture argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You know what if you don't understand the questions that are being asked then maybe you shouldn't practice the religion you're in.
And what religion is that witch?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you familiar with "the silver rule" ?
No
Created: