Stephen A.: Hardy not responsible for Cowboys' atrocity

[dogunwo]

He stated that JG only has his job because he is white.

Full Definition of racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

That definition you posted doesn't describe anything that Smith did or said.

 

[dogunwo]

That's great, that's at least a constant stance but it still doesn't support his argument that race has anything to do with JG keeping his job.

Why do people always bring up one outlier example and think that refutes everything else? I don't necessarily agree with Smith, but that doesn't make what he is saying not have any truth to it.

 

[benson]

Reading an Internet forum arguement reminds me of that time I watched a bunch of midgets trying to hump a doorknob.

 

[JoeKing]

Why do people always bring up one outlier example and think that refutes everything else? I don't necessarily agree with Smith, but that doesn't make what he is saying not have any truth to it.

What does it not refute? Real truth is perpetual, if it can be proven wrong even once, it never was the truth.

 

[JoeKing]

Reading an Internet forum arguement reminds me of that time I watched a bunch of midgets trying to hump a doorknob.

Why would you watch that unless you are a sexual deviant? You should have kept that to yourself.

 

[dogunwo]

I hate that this thread got derailed, but here is my last comment on it. SAS was an advocate of Tyrone Willingham getting fired at Notre Dame. What he had a problem with was the fact that his successor, a white head coach had essentially the same results and got an early contract extension. Whether or not race has anything to do with it is a good question, but there is enough history of unfair professional treatment due to race that the question is raised.

Its unfortunate that the race card gets thrown around sometimes unwarranted. It's also unfortunate to dismiss uncomfortable conversation because one has never personally experienced it or think that one or two examples of it not happening is proof that it is eradicated.

 

[khiladi]

Oh, BS! I've seen people write that he wasn't a "positive" addition, but I haven't seen anyone state that Hardy was solely responsible for any loss(es) this year.

Very rarely to people argue any factor as the SOLE reason for a teams collapse. That's nitpicking if one thinks another person is actually arguing it and not using hyperbole.

When they speak about Hardy and the lockerroom culture, they imply he was a MAJOR factor in the season of failure, when none of that has any practical reality on the field.

Stephen's point is clear.. The main problem is Garrett and arguing about people like Hardy is a hogwash excuse. The defense was putting up plus twenty before he came.

 

[JoeKing]

I hate that this thread got derailed, but here is my last comment on it. SAS was an advocate of Tyrone Willingham getting fired at Notre Dame. What he had a problem with was the fact that his successor, a white head coach had essentially the same results and got an early contract extension. Whether or not race has anything to do with it is a good question, but there is enough history of unfair professional treatment due to race that the question is raised.

Its unfortunate that the race card gets thrown around sometimes unwarranted. It's also unfortunate to dismiss uncomfortable conversation because one has never personally experienced it or think that one or two examples of it not happening is proof that it is eradicated.

This thread was originally about what someone said about Greg Hardy. Now it's dominated by social justice and race card throwing. Which are you talking about? If you truly hate that this thread got derailed, look no futher than the tip of your own nose.

 

[Sydla]

Nice strawman, Stephen.

Who said that Hardy was the reason the Cowboys season was a disaster?

 

[tyke1doe]

What does it not refute? Real truth is perpetual, if it can be proven wrong even once, it never was the truth.

There is a difference between truth of a scientific nature and truth involving human behavior. So I don't quite understand what you mean.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Actually, you're making up a definition to fit your argument.

Repeatedly, I've asked you for an established definition of a racist, and you've refused to submit one.

Instead, you've given me your opinion of what a racist is. I'm not interested in your opinion.

I've given you the dictionary definition of racism. I've also explain to you how racist comes from the word racism and how racist isn't even given its own definition in the Websters dictionary. Hence, I have fortified my point via an established source.

Unless you can provide an established source that says a racist can be understood unconnected to racism, I'll assume you're arguing simply to argue.

You think the word racist doesn't have a definition?

Wow.

 

[tyke1doe]

You think the word racist doesn't have a definition?

Wow.

Wow, indeed.

Let me - AGAIN - make my point clear:

1. The word "racist" is a derivative of the word "racism," which means it comes from the word "racism."

2. If it comes from the word "racism," that means its definition is connected to its word origin. In other words, a racist would be one who practice "racism."

3. My argument is supported by both Websters and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. If you look in either dictionary, it doesn't give a definition for the word "racist." It offers "racist" as an adjective or noun form of the word "racism."

4. You have YET to provide an officially recognized and established source that defines "racist" unconnected to "racism."

5. You are now at the "wounded pride" stage where you really don't have an argument but really can't give up the fight so you're starting to twist what I said. But I am VERY CLEAR in what I'm saying and the argument I'm articulating.

I'm open to you providing an officially recognized definition of a racist being disconnected to racism. I'll consider your point when you provide such information. But your opinion of what constitutes a "racist" is not an officially recognized definition".

 

[JoeKing]

There is a difference between truth of a scientific nature and truth involving human behavior. So I don't quite understand what you mean.

No, truth is truth.

 

[Doomsday101]

First Take's Stephen A. Smith breaks down why DE Greg Hardy cannot be blamed for the Cowboys' terrible season, despite his on-and-off field controversies.

LINK: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...ots-pro-scouting-director-new-general-manager

I don't think he is the sole reason and would never claim Cowboys season falls on Hardy I would say he is part of the problem not part of the solution. When the season is going bad that is when I expect guys to step up to turn things around, to me this is when you gauge the character of the player and the team. The old saying winning cures all is true and losing is when you find out who is out to win and who is concerned about themselves.

 

[tyke1doe]

No, truth is truth.

I understand that. But I didn't understand your response.

What does it not refute? Real truth is perpetual, if it can be proven wrong even once, it never was the truth.

To dogunwo's statement:

Why do people always bring up one outlier example and think that refutes everything else? I don't necessarily agree with Smith, but that doesn't make what he is saying not have any truth to it.

In context, dogunwo is saying just because Marv Lewis has been given chance after chance doesn't mean that black coaches aren't given as long a leash as white coaches.

You then say truth is perpetual so if it is proven once, it never was truth. But that's not necessarily, er, true.

Maybe Marvin Lewis is the exception to the rule, but that doesn't mean that a rule doesn't exist. And a rule is generally based on principles of truth.

Now if you're talking about empirical, scientific truth, you would be correct. But when you're talking about human behavior, no, you're not correct. And if I've followed the discussion correctly, we're talking about the latter.

 

[JoeKing]

I understand that. But I didn't understand your response.



To dogunwo's statement:



In context, dogunwo is saying just because Marv Lewis has been given chance after chance doesn't mean that black coaches aren't given as long a leash as white coaches.

You then say truth is perpetual so if it is proven once, it never was truth. But that's not necessarily, er, true.

Maybe Marvin Lewis is the exception to the rule, but that doesn't mean that a rule doesn't exist. And a rule is generally based on principles of truth.

Now if you're talking about empirical, scientific truth, you would be correct. But when you're talking about human behavior, no, you're not correct. And if I've followed the discussion correctly, we're talking about the latter.

So you are saying to the short leash norm of black coaches, Marvin is the exception? I'm saying it's not that simple. The sort leash norm applies to almost all coaches, even white ones(Chip Kelly, Tony Sparano, Steve Spagnuolo, Todd Haley, Jack Del Rio). Marvin is the exception but so is Jason Garrett and it's got nothing to do with race.

Exempting human behavior from the perpetual nature of truth is something you need to explain rather than just state as fact. Give me an example of how truth somehow becomes untrue when the human factor is at play. Truth is an absolute so I don't see how you can make that statement but I'm open and willing to have you explain it to me.

 

[Zordon]

they are setting up hardy as the fall guy. SAS isn't buying it b/c he knows even without Hardy, this team is fool's gold and garrett isn't the right man for the job.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

So define racist in Stephen A's case?

Not going to dredge all his snipes and innuendo. Just know that he looks at sports in terms of color. Every time he opens his mouth there is a sense that he has big-time biases.
So you define his altruistic, nonbiased tendencies OK? ... Not so easy, huh?

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Good response.

No, your response is so much better, Wordsworth.

 

[dallasdave]

Not going to dredge all his snipes and innuendo. Just know that he looks at sports in terms of color. Every time he opens his mouth there is a sense that he has big-time biases.
So you define his altruistic, nonbiased tendencies OK? ... Not so easy, huh?

Hey Gimme I'm on my way down to the Pig Pen Bar here in Farmer's Branch. They are having all the beer and pigs feet you want for 15 dollars !!! Are you coming down to watch the game and drink a few ????