Learn from the Patriots: Theres Power in Loyalty

[Chocolate Lab]

I never said it is impossible to measure whether they gained an unfair advantage.

I said that it is impossible to measure whether the "unfair advantage" resulted in a win.

Why in the world does that matter, Tyke?

It's like saying that if I'm running against you in the Olympics, and you're clearly faster than me, you can take steroids or even jump the gun.

Does that makes sense? Of course not.

Cheating is cheating. Whether they would have beaten the Jets without it makes no difference. Why do you think rules were made against it in the first place if it didn't create an advantage?

 

[SultanOfSix]

Believe me, when certain posters call me illiterate, it's quite the compliment.

By the way, "illiterate" means not being able to read (literally) or write (literally).

Kind of ironic that people who speak/type so eloquently about literacy and logic don't even know the basic meaning of words, much less how to appropriately use them.

Your argument is vacuous, because what JJ did wasn't illegal, nor was it considered cheating by the NFL, nor was it like what Bellicheat did. But, let's not let facts get in the way of your Cheats defending agenda.

Your stupidity is phenomenal as well, because cheating isn't applicable either in JJ's case, and neither is illegality. Cheating is defined to be giving yourself an "unfair" advantage over an opponent. And if everyone in the league could have done it because it wasn't against the rules, then it can't be considered cheating.

Now, either your logic is askewed or I correctly interpreted you to suggest that cheating is only cheating if it's illegal.

QED. You're just illiterate.

 

[khiladi]

I never said it is impossible to measure whether they gained an unfair advantage.

I said that it is impossible to measure whether the "unfair advantage" resulted in a win.

Maybe you should try and comprehend a thought, before posting incessant dribble, that is smacking of circular logic and faulty axioms. How about I just quote your own words for you:

To your unfair advantage argument, I said you can't practically evaluate that apart from winning. If you lose, you didn't gain an unfair advantage in any practical way because you still lost.

It is right there in your face, i.e. you can't evaluate unfair advantage, because an unfair advantage is quantified only by winning. SO tell me, how does the NFL qualify something as an unfair advantage, when, according to you, it can only be quanlified by a team winning?
Your telling me that it is only an unfair advantage when teams win. You further testified to your own circular logic by saying that there are too many factors in a game that impact a game, so to argue something as an unfair advantage causing a win is absurd. You contardict yourself...

Your projecting yourself as witty, when it fact, your only lookin like an idiot.. Your so wrong, no amount of back-tracking can change this fact...

SO then, once again, we are back to the same question:

How does the NFL set a rule for taping signals being an 'unfair advantage' when you claim that it is not possible to measure it?

Not only do you not understand logic, you obviously can't even read properly...

 

[tyke1doe]

QED. You're just illiterate.

You're a doodey head.

No, you're a doodey head.

Well, you're a bigger doodey head.

Are we done now?

 

[tyke1doe]

Maybe you should try and comprehend a thought, before posting incessant dribble, that is smacking of circular logic and faulty axioms. How about I just quote your own words for you:

I like how you worked "incessant dribble" in a sentence. I'm impressed.

It is right there in your face, i.e. you can't evaluate unfair advantage, because an unfair advantage is quantified only by winning. SO tell me, how does the NFL qualify something as an unfair advantage, when, according to you, it can only be quanlified by a team winning?

I think you meant "quantified."

But I'm glad you asked the question. And I'll be more than happy to explain to you once again.

You do understand what the term "practically" means, don't you, as in what does gaining an unfair advantage mean "practically"?

Law and rules are constructed based in part on theory. The theory here is if a team gains an "unfair advantage" it could help the team win. (But we know in many cases stealing signals does not work, hence, Jimmy Johnson's comments.)

But practically, you can't prove that. The only thing you can prove is that a team cheated and violated the spirit of competition and the integrity of the game.
And that is why the Pats were punished, IMO, and rightly so.
Note Goodell's comments after he handed down his punishment for the Patriots.

“This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field,” Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in a letter to the Patriots.

But beyond that (that cheating undermines the spirit of fair play and honest competition), "unfair advantage" has no practical value because you can't determine if the cheating resulted in wins. And that's what fans suggest when they say Pats should ...

a.) forfeit the Jets win and
b.) have asterisks assigned to their previous Super Bowl wins, as Donovan McNabb joked.

And since you can't prove that, you're back to theory.

See how simple that was?

Your telling me that it is only an unfair advantage when teams win. You further testified to your own circular logic by saying that there are too many factors in a game that impact a game, so to argue something as an unfair advantage causing a win is absurd. You contardict yourself...

I think you mean You're as in "you're" telling me and "contradict" as in "You contradict yourself." .

First, I'm telling you that you can't measure "unfair advantage" practically unless you're talking about how it impacts a win or loss. And there's no way to know that.
Now, if the NFL were involved in betting, it would be a different story because then point spread would be an issue, i.e., an unfair advantage keeping a game close. But even then, you'd have to prove that.

Second, I am not contradicting myself at all. My argument is this:

Because winning a football game involves so many viables, it is impossible to determine if cheating itself contributed to a win. And, practically speaking, the reason why we're even having this argument is because the Pats are winning.
If the Pats were not winning, we wouldn't be having a discussion about how cheating benefited the team. We would know it had no benefit. Now, some simply "suspect" that it had a benefit.

Your projecting yourself as witty, when it fact, your only lookin like an idiot.. Your so wrong, no amount of back-tracking can change this fact...

I think you mean "looking" and "You're so wrong." And I'm the idiot.

SO then, once again, we are back to the same question:

How does the NFL set a rule for taping signals being an 'unfair advantage' when you claim that it is not possible to measure it?

Again, you omit the critical word "practical."

But I'll answer the question again.

It does so based on the theory that it could help a team gain an advantage. And to perserve the integrity of the game and the spirit of fair competition, it prohibits taping signals.

It is not saying that it WILL result in a win. The league is saying that in theory it could and, thus, it is prohibited.

But to argue that cheating causes a win as you did ...

It is not because the Patriots won, it is HOW they won that can give weight to the idea that they got an unfair advantage, which caused them to win.

can not be determined.

Not only do you not understand logic, you obviously can't even read properly...

Well, my reading comprehension is about as great as your spelling.

Here's a stone. Aim towards your glass house.

 

[khiladi]

Law and rules are constructed based in part on theory. The theory here is if a team gains an "unfair advantage" it could help the team win. (But we know in many cases stealing signals does not work, hence, Jimmy Johnson's comments.)

And if you understood a basic thing about discursive reasoning, you would have known that all knowledge is based in part on theory. None of your side-tracking is relevant, and I am going to quote you one more time:

To your unfair advantage argument, I said you can't practically evaluate that apart from winning. If you lose, you didn't gain an unfair advantage in any practical way because you still lost.

No matter what, it is right there in your face. Your wrong...

You said that the only way you can evaluate something as an unfair advanatge is if the team wins. That leads us to certain questions, as per your own 'logic':

1.

How does the NFL quantify something as an unfair advantage if they can't measure it?

2.

Where in the NFL rulebook is there a condition that unfair advantage is predicated on a win? Teams can get an unfair advantage and still lose. Winning does not necessitate that a team hasn't gotten an unfair advantage. It simply means that even in the case of cheating, the loser still lost.

3.

A team can get an unfair advatange, and win because of it.

You do understand what the term "practically" means, don't you, as in what does gaining an unfair advantage mean "practically"?

Yes I do, and that still doesn't change a single thing. According to your logic, you can't prove that an unfair advantage took place 'practically'. The only way to prove it 'practically' is if the team won. But then, you say that there are too many things to effect the outcome of a game, so that one cannot even prove an unfair advantage 'practically' even if the team won.

So then really, an 'unfair advantage' has absolutely no meaning, and the NFL just made it up. So tell me ocne again, how can the NFL calling something an unfair advantage, if, according to you it can't be proven that it helped the team win, and your definition of unfair advantage is only when a team wins?

Well, my reading comprehension is about as great as your spelling.

People only talk about spelling in the internet world when they have nothing to stand on. Yes, your axioms suck and are flawed.

No amount of back-tracking can change the fact that you engage in circular reasoning.

 

[tyke1doe]

And if you understood a basic thing about discursive reasoning, you would have known that all knowledge is based in part on theory. None of your side-tracking is relevant, and I am going to quote you one more time:

Oooh, discursive reasoning. Even more impressed.

Of course, if you had not entered the conversation in midstream, you would have a better understanding of the argument.

But this hasn't been the first time you jumped into a conversation and segregated points from a context.

How does the NFL quantify something as an unfair advantage if they can't measure it?

Already addressed this.

Where in the NFL rulebook is there a condition that unfair advantage is predicated on a win? Teams can get an unfair advantage and still lose. Winning does not necessitate that a team hasn't gotten an unfair advantage. It simply means that even in the case of cheating, the loser still lost.

Correct. So how much of an unfair advantage was it?

A team can get an unfair advatange, and win because of it.

True, but how do you prove that the win was a result of cheating?

So then really, an 'unfair advantage' has absolutely no meaning, and the NFL just made it up. So tell me ocne again, how can the NFL calling something an unfair advantage, if, according to you it can't be proven that it helped the team win, and your definition of unfair advantage is only when a team wins?

It does have meaning. But that meaning is found in the fact that it violates the rules of fair play and honest competition. It's not that it produces wins, at least not in any definitive way that we can measure and conclude with certainty.

And, again, that is my point. And that is my response to those who suggest that the Pats should forefeit games and that their Super Bowl wins should contain asterisks.

People only talk about spelling in the internet world when they have nothing to stand on. Yes, your axioms suck and are flawed.

And people often misspell words because they are careless with their use of the language, as they are in their logic.

No amount of back-tracking can change the fact that you engage in circular reasoning.

And no amount of employing the term "discursive" obscures the fact that you entered an argument in midstream and ignored basic context. :

Shall we continue this "you're a doodey head, no, you're a doodey head" argument?

 

[khiladi]

Already addressed this.

No you didn't. What you said is that unfair advantage is only unfair advantage when you win. Since there are too many factors that outcome a game, then it is impossible to prove an unfair advantage. What this means logically is that, according to you, the words unfair advanatge have no meaning 'practically'. That is the stupidity of your logic. Further, this is precisely why you tried to make a distinction between the illegality of the act and unfair advantage. You wanted to argue that unfair advantage cannot be proven.

Really, I want to know how does the NFL even quantify unfair advanatge, when according to you, it isn't even measurable practically? Teling me you answered it, doesn't mean you answered it. Telling me I ignored basic context now that you realized the fallacy of your argument, doesn't mean you answered it.

Correct. So how much of an unfair advantage was it?

I know I'm correct. It is your circular reasoning that is not. We are talking about your flawed position, not mine.

True, but how do you prove that the win was a result of cheating?

Well, that is a matter of degree isn't it. We can't prove any scientific theory absolutely, but it becomes theory because the empirical evidence attests to it. If there were tapes, then we can make an educated guess, but since Godel burned them, we will never know.

It does have meaning. But that meaning is found in the fact that it violates the rules of fair play and honest competition. It's not that it produces wins, at least not in any definitive way that we can measure and conclude with certainty.

It is called circumstantial evidence. We can't prove anything absolutely, but we can surely prove it significantly influenced the outcome of a game to the extent it is called an unfair advantage. This is the exact meaning of unfair.

And, again, that is my point. And that is my response to those who suggest that the Pats should forefeit games and that their Super Bowl wins should contain asterisks.

Their Super Bowl wins should contain astericks. They won them by a combined 10 points. The Eagles accused them in the second-half of knowing the plays they were calling.

And no amount of employing the term "discursive" obscures the fact that you entered an argument in midstream and ignored basic context. :

That is the latest argument, that I ignored basic context. No, you were wrong, and you can't admit it, so now you blame it allegedly on context. I know exactly what the context is, and your logic sucks.

Shall we continue this "you're a doodey head, no, you're a doodey head" argument?

It's like a defense mechanism that prevents you from admitting your wrong. That and the following:



other childish retorts...

 

[tyke1doe]

Edited for redundancy

You're a doodey head.
No, you're a doodey head.
No, you're a bigger doodey head.

You finish now?

 

[nathanlt]

The Patriots cheated.

They were stupid enough to cheat against the Jets, whom they would have beaten anyway.

They deserve to have the "win" against the Jets reflected as a loss on their record.

They deserve to forfeit both first round draft picks.

They should have never been allowed to participate in the playoffs.

That is, unless cheating is endorsed by the NFL.

This 'perfect season' will NEVER count.