How often are you posting what you actually believe is true?

[Kblaze8855]

If you have been around here(or just the internet) for a while you notice how many arguments people make are based on “But I thought you said *insert argument from other subject* but now that doesn’t apply?”

Ignoring that the argument being referenced is one the accuser himself didn’t agree with.

So what happens is the accuser takes a firm stand that the logic he/she disagreed with initially is in fact the truth because it opposes the original guys intent.

And it goes on for years. The “If you wanna say ____ then you must also say____” where the person who doesn’t even believe the initial argument uses it for so long it seems to be their true position.

The troll/anti troll(with both sides thinking they’re merely the response to the trolling) gets so deep you’re both spending all day arguing the other sides are right about arguments you disagree with…just trying to apply them in opposition.

It goes:

“1 is better than 2 because of rings.”


“Oh so 3 is better than 1? He has more rings”

But you don’t believe 3 is better than one. It’s just the argument you had to make to oppose the idea that 1 was better than 2.

But now…3>1 is forever a part of your argument because they won’t stop using rings to say 1>2.

After years…do you just…believe it?


Do you just absorb bad arguments naturally after years of making them intending to show someone else’s hypocrisy?

I legit don’t know what half of you think about anything.

It’s all “But these ____ fans say ____! They can’t now say ___!”

But that suggests you don’t yourself believe your points.

But you keep saying them.

I feel like we need a society wide argument reset to know what anyone really thinks.

Its possible all this 1/9, 4/10, 1 FMVP shit isn’t actually believed by ANYONE?

Could you all be closer than you think but creating more division by mocking each others feigned beliefs so long you settle on the wrong end not realizing neither of you believe what you’re saying?

Is there anything I could do to get your unmodified takes on issues as if you had never seen them argued before?

[warriorfan]

well what gets ****ed up is there is the truth and then there is “the common consensus”

so people will argue under the framework of the common consensus even if it isn’t the truth, because that is pretty much what they are operating with

it gets tough when there are the few who are actually trying to get down to the truth but have to trudge through bunk common consensus narratives

it’s people trying to speak two different languages and still communicating properly

long story short dumbass people make it difficult to discuss anything

[Kblaze8855]

It is difficult for me because I ask all these sometimes obscure questions because I legitimately want to know what other fans in general and sometimes people in particular think. You personally I’ve talked to about a lot of things for years. It’s conceivable I might want to know if you think Kyrie is better at basketball than Manu or Klay or Pippen. But the question is loaded because your answer is seen by people you have 20 ongoing arguments with over the years and you can’t give me an answer that might conflict with whatever the argument is with the enemy. They might see it.

Whatever your internal answer is will be run through a filter to eliminate statements that can be used against you.

And it forces me to ask….

How do I get access to what you actually think?

And is what you actually think already tarnished by making bad faith arguments with points you don’t think are rational for years at a time?

[warriorfan]

feel from where you are coming from

it’s tough but we are doing our best out here

[iamgine]

People think too black and white in discussions. Suppose I claim MJ > Bird cause Rings. It doesn't mean I also claim Horry > MJ cause of rings. It doesn't mean I claim Russell > MJ cause rings. It doesn't mean Russell > Wilt cause rings. There are context that can only be applied to the original claim.

[highwhey]

feel from where you are coming from

it’s tough but we are doing our best out here

you smoke crack

[Kblaze8855]

you smoke crack

[Kblaze8855]

People think too black and white in discussions. Suppose I claim MJ > Bird cause Rings. It doesn't mean I also claim Horry > MJ cause of rings. It doesn't mean I claim Russell > MJ cause rings. It doesn't mean Russell > Wilt cause rings. There are context that can only be applied to the original claim.

Consistency really might be overrated in sports arguments. The same thing that makes one player better won’t necessarily make him better than someone he has that advantage over in another matchup. But having both takes available makes it hard to win the argument the way it’s judged by internet people. Both your contradictory takes might be true but you kinda have to sacrifice one for perception purposes.

[Wardell Curry]

Consistency really might be overrated in sports arguments. The same thing that makes one player better won’t necessarily make him better than someone he has that advantage over in another matchup. But having both takes available makes it hard to win the argument the way it’s judged by internet people. Both your contradictory takes might be true but you kinda have to sacrifice one for perception purposes.

Consistency in terms of results in a solos sport is not overrated at all.

In a team sport? The amount that it matters is not able to be determined. This is all just an entertainment jerkoff.

[red1]

99% of the time


I believe everything I post, obvious trolling aside

[Axe]

If you think grant williams is still with the celtics today, then it just shows what a completely braindead retard you truly are.

[John8204]

Well I certainly will devil's advocate but mostly it's in response to the mobs common dogma. The point of a discussion board is to after-all foster discussion. So I will argue for an unpopular case but I can't think of a time where I've been blatantly dishonest.

[ShawkFactory]

well what gets ****ed up is there is the truth and then there is “the common consensus”

so people will argue under the framework of the common consensus even if it isn’t the truth, because that is pretty much what they are operating with

it gets tough when there are the few who are actually trying to get down to the truth but have to trudge through bunk common consensus narratives

it’s people trying to speak two different languages and still communicating properly

long story short dumbass people make it difficult to discuss anything

This post right here is exactly what bugs me about the so-called "truth seekers". You have a different opinion than the consensus. Cool. And because your opinion is different, you are more likely to have your takes met with opposition or perhaps outright hostility. That's where the survival instincts then kick, where you must double down and increase the intensity of your opinion to the point where it is more than a belief and almost a forgone conclusion. That's the only way to get through all of the backlash behind the takes.

Then you have a small majority of people who agree with you, and that brotherhood ends up being so strong because you're supposedly bucking the system as the sheep watch. Although in reality it's just nice to have some validation when you don't normally have it.

At the end of the day yours is an opinion likes everyone else's. Being different doesn't make you right.

[SaltyMeatballs]

Sometimes I'll **** around to get a reaction from someone just for my own amusement

But most of the time I post things I actually believe in

Like when I say LeBron is the best individual basketball player ever, I really mean that. I also think ring culture is extremely toxic because there are a number of factors come into play that casuals often don't think about and some all-time greats' rankings hugely benefited on what situation they were in, how good their teammates were, what era they were in, the competition they faced, etc.

[iamgine]

Consistency really might be overrated in sports arguments. The same thing that makes one player better won’t necessarily make him better than someone he has that advantage over in another matchup. But having both takes available makes it hard to win the argument the way it’s judged by internet people. Both your contradictory takes might be true but you kinda have to sacrifice one for perception purposes.

To me winning argument is not the goal for discussions. It is only important for a debate. If you want to win an argument/debate you don't need any fact, just do the techniques like ad hominem, straw man, have the loudest voice, etc.