RagahRagah
-
Posts
1,989 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by RagahRagah
-
-
Just now, TaylorStSox said:
All of our opinions mean nothing. Welcome to Soxtalk.
You called me dumb and illogical.
Logic is an established philosophy, based on FACT.
You don't get to call someone dumb and illogical and use an OPINION as support. Sorry. Your beliefs don't jive on a logical level.
Come back when you're ready to answer questions and define the different levels of "severity" and "integrity."
-
2 minutes ago, DirtySox said:
Umm...
-
3 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:
Standards are opinions, my guy. It is my opinion that any team that signs Hinch lacks integrity
Standard and opinions have zero to do with logic. Clearly you have no actual knowledge of the subject so save your laughable Sith Lord comments.
Frankly your opinion is contrary to reality. If you can't even define integrity or scale it then your opinion on it means nothing.
Nice job ignoring virtually the entirety of the post yet again.
-
6 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:
That's a lot of words and a lot of projection things I never said. I don't care for Dallas because was both complicit and says a lot of stupid things in an attempt to absolve those responsible.
I don't think what Belichick has been implicated in are as serious as Hinch. It was a lazy comparison, which I've said numerous times.
You don't have to agree with my standards and that's okay. We all have them. Your quest for absolutes doesn't make any sense either, and that's okay too.
So then you do not believe the Sox lack Integrity by signing him, correct?
You don't think it was a s serious? That's essentially you using an opinion to get out of having to backup your own argument, or even explain it.
I could care less what your standards are, that has nothing to do with the argument. You don't get to tell people that they are dumb and illogical and then when called on to explain how, hide behind an opinion. Because logic and density are not based on your "standards" or opinions. Logic is just logic, which it is clear you're not very well versed on.
You have failed on every possible level to explain your argument, stay consistent on your argument, or even explain these severities you keep referring to.
If you're completely fine with what Belichick did, being that angry at Dallas is a huge inconsistency in your own logic. Your personal feeling they're fine, but when they actually interfere with logic, and you need to stop using logic as an argument point.
You've consistently failed to answer simple questions the backup your arguments and at one point even ignored the entirety of someone's post to correct their grammar. Clearly you lost and it's time to move on.
-
1
-
-
We signed Keuchel. How do all of the anti Hinch people feel about that?
But a cheater of what severity? As you know, there are different severities of cheating, so please define what levels of cheater you don't want hired (some others apparently struggle with this).
-
10 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:
So you think integrity is absolute too? Jesus, man. Are you a sith?
You flat out said the Sox would have no Integrity if they hired Hinch because he's a cheater.
I think we missed your chart of what levels of cheating classify what levels of integrity, so please do that for us. You can't say there's no Integrity in hiring one cheater and that there is in hiring another cheater. And your claim that Bill Belichick isn't that big a cheater is debatable at best anyway.
You haven't really answered any questions thus far so I expect you to continue to not do so, but let's try this one, since you're so big on logic.
You already stated "Fuck" Dallas keuchel. I'm going to assume that's because he was on the cheating team. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Please explain exactly what severity of cheating Dallas enacted as a pitcher on that team. So you're angry at him but you're making excuses for Bill Belichick. Something doesn't add up there. Please list with severity whatever Dallas did compared to Bill Belichick's. So I can fax hired Dallas to be a pitching coach you claim to have no integrity? Because why?
You have yet to make any specifications at all in terms of this "severity" you keep going on about, and quite frankly it's clear that your judgment on the subject is well out of whack.
In reality, the fact you completely ignore to posters actual post and criticized his grammar tell us all we need to know. Refusing to answer a question clearly means you don't have the answer. You can't even Define the parameters and logic of your own arguments.
-
2 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:
2 people are calling me out and we disagree. I'm okay with that. You want to hire a cheater and I don't. That's okay.
Not only are you minimizing (it's been more than 2 people, lol) but you keep refusing to answer the question and acknowledge the point.
Why is the concept of integrity only applied to cheating of a specific severity? So the Sox do have integrity if they hire a cheater of lesser severity?
You don't even realize that you just blatantly contradicted yourself. "Logical."
-
4 minutes ago, Tony said:
Dude, come on. You're being called out on multiple fronts but multiple different people.
You say you've answered the question, but everyone (except you) knows you haven't. It's simple:
You said if the Sox hired AJ Hinch, they have no integrity because he cheated. You are saying there are different levels of cheating....which is true......but if you are talking about integrity, which has been your point the whole time....why is some cheating OK, but other types of cheating is just wrong? Integrity is pretty black and white. If you cheat....does winning more Super Bowls than anyone else somehow help your integrity?
People are coming at you because your argument doesn't make sense. And if you don't want to answer that's fine....but it sort of answers the question for us.
I tried to stray from having to use The L Word because it feels to me like the people who bring up logic the quickest are the ones who most blatantly disregard it.
-
5 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:
If your logic is that all cheating is absolute and penalties should be applied universally despite their severity, then it's just plain old dumb. Imagine if any society was run that way. Yikes.
Funny thing is that's not actually what you were even arguing. You never corrected your wording or your stance.
You never specified what cheating was okay for you in a manager and what cheating wasn't.
So answer this. There is no Integrity in signing one cheater but there is integrity in signing another if his cheating wasn't quite as bad as the first guy's?
And no, that was not my logic. You didn't follow my argument.
-
1 minute ago, SleepyWhiteSox said:
It's all or nothing!!!! No in-betweens!!!!
It's always interesting when someone words something in an absolute, certain way and then later on instead of changing their wording or specifying it they have to start doing mental gymnastics.
-
1 minute ago, TaylorStSox said:
Your post was so illogical that it really doesn't deserve a counterpoint.
That's exactly what a person with no counterpoint says. (There are others coming at you that you have yet to answer as well)
Please explain logic to me, then. If you can after dealing with your mental gymnastics.
-
2
-
-
Just now, TaylorStSox said:
This is beyond dumb.
What an incredibly insightful counterpoint.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, mqr said:
There are, like, a lot of philosophers that do not agree with you.
Do you really want to have this discussion? Fine.
What is a principle? It's definitely not, "This cheater is so bad and it's beneath me and my integrity to have him but this other one's cheating was (IMO) less severe so that's alright."
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:
I didn't watch any Sox games this year. You can pull my fan card or whatever. I don't really care. Fandom is voluntary.
Again, there are degrees. What Hinch did is irredeemable, imo. This is why laws are applied differently based on severity.
Again, why is one (multiple, actually) ok and another is not. Cheating is cheating. "Degrees" are for meaningful paperwork and repercussions. You either have a principle or you don't.
Pick a street.
-
46 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:
I don't cheer for Dallas either. Fuck em both.
Then you kinda aren't cheering for your own team.
Also, you are kind of exposing yourself by basically suggesting that having one cheater would equal no integrity while throwing out your own argument with BB because... apparently his cheating wasn't as bad. Lol.
Gimme Hinch all day.
-
1
-
-
HE GAWN!!!!!!
-
1
-
1
-
-
Ricky getting the boot is what really makes this season feel like a success to me.
Now all we really need is a new manager, a few acquisitions and a little luck and I can actually be optimistic for next season.
If I wasn't at work I'd crack a bottle.
-
3
-
-
25 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:
Its a real leap of faith to think that the front office sees a " train wreck" of a manager yet won't fire him when they know their contention window is now officially open. That is negligence.
Welcome to Chicago White Sox fandom! There are some things we will need to go over...
-
1 hour ago, jaws7575 said:
jerk I am not peavy so go find you shine box
*Squints* Yep, that's yooooouuuu!
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:
Quintana is getting a $10M+ per year deal, so I don’t think it’s realistic to expect him in addition to a high-end starter.
I think this is based on perception. It is doable.
-
2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:
Fully agree with this. I just don’t believe Quintana is plan A unless they plan to pursue a big-time RF like Springer and I don’t see that happening.
No but I'd be super happy to get one of Bauer or Stroman and add Q as well. Think that would be about as good a result as we could hope for.
-
6 hours ago, Dominikk85 said:
Hamels is 36 and only pitched 3 innings this year due to a shoulder injury.
He was a fantastic pitcher and still pretty good 2019 but I'm scared of a 36 year old with a shoulder injury.
As a cheap reclamation project sure but not as a guy you rely on.
To be honest I just want to be done with this sort of thing. I'm tired of mid-30's coin flips. I realize 1 year deals are sometimes needed to round out the rotation and the older guys tend to fit that mold but I don't think it ever works for us and there have to be slightly younger options available that aren't just injury risks.
Wasn't Collin McHugh available last year?
-
Just now, Dick Allen said:
It was interesting what he said, because I never really thought of it. A guy warming up after 1 hit to start the game makes the team think the manager doesn't think his offense can score. And the funny thing is, there was nothing that happened in the top of the first that would make you think it was going to be a 2-1 game.
Yeah, I realize I didn't state the difference here being that a run hadn't even come across yet.
-
5 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:
The Big Hurt said warming a guy up the second Dunning gave up 1 hit did two very bad things. It ruined Dunning's confidence, and it hurt the rest of the team's confidence. If the plan is to use 8 or 9 guys, chances are there are going to be a couple, if not more, that don't have it that day. You can't be afraid of 1 run in the first inning.
If the plan was to use Crochet for a few innings early, why didn't they start him?
I couldn't agree more. You just don't handle a starter this way. I believe most managers are guilty of this to a degree now, though. As soon as the playoffs start, once a starter gives up a run or 2 they go into panic mode.
-
1
-
Tony La Russa named Manager
in Pale Hose Talk
Posted
Please God no Larussa. Dude is old as fuck.