School Basketball Coach Suspended After His Team Drubbed Opponents 92-4

[Jarhyn]

In the Sacred Hill situation, the team did not ease up at all. The coach is a first class asshole and is lucky he was not suspended for more games.

There was a student in my high school who was mathematically gifted. I remember one particular test where he wrecked the curve for the entire rest of the class. Should he have been told to ease up, lest his mathematical gifts humiliate the other students? Should a long distance runner hold back from achieving a personal best if she is too far ahead of the competition? If not, why not?

You are not going to "get it". High School sports aren't for "maximising the pain your enemies feel".. They are for teaching lessons that include "sportsmanship", which was pretty clear to me how that was expressed by the program when dealing with "skill imbalances" - win the game with grace, not douchebaggery. If you don't know what that means, or you need some autistic level of certainty on point spreads at half-time, then you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the nuances of competitive sports to comment on the difference between a sportsmanlike win and an unsportsmanlike win. What is a "press" in basketball? start there.
This isn't a case of "everyone gets a participation trophy".. this is a case of "not being an asshole" - I am afraid that's the part that may be alluding you.

So, while it's unclear what the present situation is, I will now note that there are very much in this world occasional situations where a person who gets off on being an asshole just doesn't want to say "hey, look, just let me have this, ok? It's not like I'm hurting YOU, just wait and you'll get a turn at (pleasure derived from being an asshole)!"

The reality is that I want nobody actually deriving pleasure from being an asshole to people in general, because they ARE hurting me, and if we must have a valve by which people who MUST occasionally fulfill a need of "be an asshole", that we find ways to mitigate this and limit the derivation of such pleasures only to those who wish to so derive them.

Part of this IS done with sports, usually of the sort that happen when two people talk smack on the street and take it to the court, and both know what they are doing and why, and they don't drag in people avoiding the business end of an asshole.

 

[Metaphor]

Perhaps you should explain why you think it is not.

Because I don't even understand what you are arguing. Are you saying being 'in the zone' is time-limited?

In the real word, one rules out possibilities when there is no evidence,

I don't. People interested in the truth don't.

If your "possibility" is contradicted by reality, it is a fantasy not a possibility.

I feel like you have a real problem understanding what a counterfactual is.

The coach offered none of the mentioned "possibilities" as a reason in his apology. Which suggests those possibilities are conceptual not realistic.

The coach did not admit to 'running up' the score in order to 'embarrass' the other team, either. But Rhea is certain that's why he did it. So apparently we can trust that when the coach is silent on a particular issue that silence confirms our prejudices, except when it doesn't.

So, in the absence of any evidence that supports your possibilities, do you still think the team's behavior was acceptable?

Oy gevalt. I am withholding judgment on the 'acceptability' of the outcome because there are scenarios where it is acceptable or laudable and scenarios where it isn't. If, for example as one possible scenario, the coach of the other team had come to the Sacred Heart coach at half time and begged him to 'ease up', that his girls were demoralised and humiliated, and if this was something the Sacred Heart coach would expect some other coach to do for him if the tables were turned, then it would have been unacceptable.

 

[Metaphor]

In the Sacred Hill situation, the team did not ease up at all. The coach is a first class asshole and is lucky he was not suspended for more games.

There was a student in my high school who was mathematically gifted. I remember one particular test where he wrecked the curve for the entire rest of the class. Should he have been told to ease up, lest his mathematical gifts humiliate the other students? Should a long distance runner hold back from achieving a personal best if she is too far ahead of the competition? If not, why not?

You are not going to "get it". High School sports aren't for "maximising the pain your enemies feel".. They are for teaching lessons that include "sportsmanship", which was pretty clear to me how that was expressed by the program when dealing with "skill imbalances" - win the game with grace, not douchebaggery. If you don't know what that means, or you need some autistic level of certainty on point spreads at half-time, then you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the nuances of competitive sports to comment on the difference between a sportsmanlike win and an unsportsmanlike win. What is a "press" in basketball? start there.
This isn't a case of "everyone gets a participation trophy".. this is a case of "not being an asshole" - I am afraid that's the part that may be alluding you.

You are correct: I am not going to "get it", because the only way people have been able to explain their inconsistent preferences is by making a distinction without a moral difference.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps you should explain why you think it is not.

Because I don't even understand what you are arguing.

That is obvious on so many levels.

Are you saying being 'in the zone' is time-limited?

In the real word, one rules out possibilities when there is no evidence,

I don't. People interested in the truth don't.

Perhaps in la-la land, but in the real world.

If your "possibility" is contradicted by reality, it is a fantasy not a possibility.

I feel like you have a real problem understanding what a counterfactual is.

No, it is just about anything you write on this subject.

The coach offered none of the mentioned "possibilities" as a reason in his apology. Which suggests those possibilities are conceptual not realistic.

The coach did not admit to 'running up' the score in order to 'embarrass' the other team, either. But Rhea is certain that's why he did it. So apparently we can trust that when the coach is silent on a particular issue that silence confirms our prejudices, except when it doesn't.

Sure Jan. Except that an 88 point differential is much more consistent with running up a score which is usually done to embarrass an opponent than any of your flights of fancy.

So, in the absence of any evidence that supports your possibilities, do you still think the team's behavior was acceptable?

Oy gevalt. I am withholding judgment on the 'acceptability' of the outcome because there are scenarios where it is acceptable or laudable and scenarios where it isn't. If, for example as one possible scenario, the coach of the other team had come to the Sacred Heart coach at half time and begged him to 'ease up', that his girls were demoralised and humiliated, and if this was something the Sacred Heart coach would expect some other coach to do for him if the tables were turned, then it would have been unacceptable.

I didn't ask for you try out more fantasies. Assuming there are no relevant unknowns (or fantasies), would you think the team's behavior was acceptable.

 

[Metaphor]

Sure Jan. Except that an 88 point differential is much more consistent with running up a score which is usually done to embarrass an opponent than any of your flights of fancy.

An action done in order to embarrass an opponent is a conclusion made with prejudiced, implicit assumptions. It assumes you know the mind of the coach.

I didn't ask for you try out more fantasies. Assuming there are no relevant unknowns (or fantasies), would you think the team's behavior was acceptable.

I've answered your question. There are many relevant unknowns. That you feel free to mind-read the coach, and essentialise his character as aan asshole from a single data point is your failing, your unkindess, and your prejudice, not mine.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure Jan. Except that an 88 point differential is much more consistent with running up a score which is usually done to embarrass an opponent than any of your flights of fancy.

An action done in order to embarrass an opponent is a conclusion made with prejudiced, implicit assumptions. It assumes you know the mind of the coach.

No, it does not. I do not employ your MO.

I didn't ask for you try out more fantasies. Assuming there are no relevant unknowns (or fantasies), would you think the team's behavior was acceptable.

I've answered your question. There are many relevant unknowns.

No, you are either evading the question or are unfamiliar with the English language. I will rephrase in the vain hope of getting a relevant and coherent response. Under the assumption that there are no relevant unknowns, would you think the team's behavior was acceptable?
The assumption of no relevant unknowns allows you to be unconstrained by possible unknowns in constructing your response. You have a demonstrated flair for fantasy, so I look forward to your response.

That you feel free to mind-read the coach, and essentialise his character as aan asshole from a single data point is your failing, your unkindess, and your prejudice, not mine.

You are wrong. I do not employ your MO. But you keep doing what you do - fling ad hom accusations in your apologia of assholish behavior.

 

[TomC]

“Sacred Heart Academy values the lessons taught and cultivated through athletic participation including ethical and responsible behavior, leadership and strength of character and respect for one’s opponents,” Sister Sheila O’Neill, the school's president, wrote.

I don't see what's difficult about Sister O'Neill's statement here.
Tom

 

[Gun Nut]

In the Sacred Hill situation, the team did not ease up at all. The coach is a first class asshole and is lucky he was not suspended for more games.

There was a student in my high school who was mathematically gifted. I remember one particular test where he wrecked the curve for the entire rest of the class. Should he have been told to ease up, lest his mathematical gifts humiliate the other students? Should a long distance runner hold back from achieving a personal best if she is too far ahead of the competition? If not, why not?

You are not going to "get it". High School sports aren't for "maximising the pain your enemies feel".. They are for teaching lessons that include "sportsmanship", which was pretty clear to me how that was expressed by the program when dealing with "skill imbalances" - win the game with grace, not douchebaggery. If you don't know what that means, or you need some autistic level of certainty on point spreads at half-time, then you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the nuances of competitive sports to comment on the difference between a sportsmanlike win and an unsportsmanlike win. What is a "press" in basketball? start there.
This isn't a case of "everyone gets a participation trophy".. this is a case of "not being an asshole" - I am afraid that's the part that may be alluding you.

You are correct: I am not going to "get it", because the only way people have been able to explain their inconsistent preferences is by making a distinction without a moral difference.

"Without" a moral difference... or with a moral difference "you are unable to distinguish".... You made my point.

 

[TomC]

That you feel free to mind-read the coach, and essentialise his character as aan asshole

Seriously?

I've read a lot of your posts.
From C19 mandates and policies to trans swimmers, you seem quite ready to read other people's minds and attribute motivation.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perhaps you should explain why you think it is not.

Because I don't even understand what you are arguing.

That is obvious on so many levels.

Are you saying being 'in the zone' is time-limited?

In the real word, one rules out possibilities when there is no evidence,

I don't. People interested in the truth don't.

Perhaps in la-la land, but in the real world.

If your "possibility" is contradicted by reality, it is a fantasy not a possibility.

I feel like you have a real problem understanding what a counterfactual is.

No, it is just about anything you write on this subject.

The coach offered none of the mentioned "possibilities" as a reason in his apology. Which suggests those possibilities are conceptual not realistic.

The coach did not admit to 'running up' the score in order to 'embarrass' the other team, either. But Rhea is certain that's why he did it. So apparently we can trust that when the coach is silent on a particular issue that silence confirms our prejudices, except when it doesn't.

Sure Jan. Except that an 88 point differential is much more consistent with running up a score which is usually done to embarrass an opponent than any of your flights of fancy.

Just to hit home at my earlier point, 92 to 50 is running up the score. 92 to 4 has no term for it. I still can't believe this is a subject for discussion.

Metaphor disagrees this is an issue. How many more times can that be stated?

 

[TomC]

I played basketball in middle school. There was a policy about this. In my dim recollection, it was a function of point spread at half-time.

But it wasn't the coaches call. The officials running the game made the call. The coaches might have had a say, but the games were ended by the officials who didn't have a stake in the outcome. That's the only real problem I have with this particular event. Making the coaches responsible.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I played basketball in middle school. There was a policy about this. In my dim recollection, it was a function of point spread at half-time.

But it wasn't the coaches call. The officials running the game made the call. The coaches might have had a say, but the games were ended by the officials who didn't have a stake in the outcome. That's the only real problem I have with this particular event. Making the coaches responsible.
Tom

In a setting where the coaches DO have power, the responsibility lies with the coaches. I agree this should not be up to the coaches.

 

[Metaphor]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

Rhea (and others) looked at the score and said the coach did what he did because he wanted to embarrass the other team.

laughing dog (and others) looked at the single action of a coach and were willing to call the coach a first class asshole based on that single action.

From C19 mandates and policies to trans swimmers, you seem quite ready to read other people's minds and attribute motivation.
Tom

If I ever attribute a mind-state to somebody else that others think is not justified, I'm sure they will let me know. If you have a particular one in mind, you can address it on that thread.

 

[Metaphor]

"Without" a moral difference... or with a moral difference "you are unable to distinguish".... You made my point.

The humiliation felt by a runner losing by a large margin is disregarded. This is despite the fact that the humiliation is real and it is as avoidable as 'running up' a basketball score.

Various people condemning the coach do not believe runners have any obligation whatsoever to prevent the humiliation they cause others by winning by a large margin. The various rationalisations offered (running is an individual sport) do not address the humiliation caused as a known side effect of winning. So, they've made a distinction (running is an individual sport) but that does not appear to me to make a moral difference to how the winner ought act (if they believe a winning basketball team ought act a certain way).

 

[Metaphor]

No, it does not. I do not employ your MO.

Of course it assumes the mind of somebody to say they carried out an action achieve X.

Under the assumption that there are no relevant unknowns, would you think the team's behavior was acceptable?
The assumption of no relevant unknowns allows you to be unconstrained by possible unknowns in constructing your response. You have a demonstrated flair for fantasy, so I look forward to your response.

Whether the team's behaviour was unacceptable depends.

You are wrong. I do not employ your MO. But you keep doing what you do - fling ad hom accusations in your apologia of assholish behavior.

You called the coach a first class asshole. You did that based on one action he took.

You did this and everyone can see it.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, it does not. I do not employ your MO.

Of course it assumes the mind of somebody to say they carried out an action achieve X.

Under the assumption that there are no relevant unknowns, would you think the team's behavior was acceptable?
The assumption of no relevant unknowns allows you to be unconstrained by possible unknowns in constructing your response. You have a demonstrated flair for fantasy, so I look forward to your response.

Whether the team's behaviour was unacceptable depends.

You are wrong. I do not employ your MO. But you keep doing what you do - fling ad hom accusations in your apologia of assholish behavior.

You called the coach a first class asshole. You did that based on one action he took.

You did this and everyone can see it.

So it would be okay to say the coach was a first class asshole in this single incident? Wouldn't want the thread to get mired in minutiae

 

[Metaphor]

No, it does not. I do not employ your MO.

Of course it assumes the mind of somebody to say they carried out an action achieve X.

Under the assumption that there are no relevant unknowns, would you think the team's behavior was acceptable?
The assumption of no relevant unknowns allows you to be unconstrained by possible unknowns in constructing your response. You have a demonstrated flair for fantasy, so I look forward to your response.

Whether the team's behaviour was unacceptable depends.

You are wrong. I do not employ your MO. But you keep doing what you do - fling ad hom accusations in your apologia of assholish behavior.

You called the coach a first class asshole. You did that based on one action he took.

You did this and everyone can see it.

So it would be okay to say the coach was a first class asshole in this single incident?

No.

First, I would have to agree that the coach did what he did in order to embarrass the other team. Rhea, laughing dog and Toni are convinced of that. I am not.

Second, laughing dog does not seem to be aware of the accusation he made, though I've tried to explain it to him. Imagine somebody observing a single thing you did and summarising your entire character based on that single thing. Even if laughing dog believed running up the score in this single incident was an assholish thing to do, that doesn't mean the coach's entire character is that of a first class asshole. Nobody knows anything else about this coach except the score of a single game.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, it does not. I do not employ your MO.

Of course it assumes the mind of somebody to say they carried out an action achieve X.

Under the assumption that there are no relevant unknowns, would you think the team's behavior was acceptable?
The assumption of no relevant unknowns allows you to be unconstrained by possible unknowns in constructing your response. You have a demonstrated flair for fantasy, so I look forward to your response.

Whether the team's behaviour was unacceptable depends.

You are wrong. I do not employ your MO. But you keep doing what you do - fling ad hom accusations in your apologia of assholish behavior.

You called the coach a first class asshole. You did that based on one action he took.

You did this and everyone can see it.

So it would be okay to say the coach was a first class asshole in this single incident?

No.

First, I would have to agree that the coach did what he did in order to embarrass the other team. Rhea, laughing dog and Toni are convinced of that. I am not.

First of all, one would have to be an insensitive prick to not understand this would be the result.

Second, laughing dog does not seem to be aware of the accusation he made, though I've tried to explain it to him. Imagine somebody observing a single thing you did and summarising your entire character based on that single thing. Even if laughing dog believed running up the score in this single incident was an assholish thing to do, that doesn't mean the coach's entire character is that of a first class asshole. Nobody knows anything else about this coach except the score of a single game.

I don't think anyone here thinks his assholish behavior is all encompassing to the coaches entire life. But you do you and keep arguing that fantasy.

 

[TomC]

If I ever attribute a mind-state to somebody else that others think is not justified, I'm sure they will let me know. If you have a particular one in mind, you can address it on that thread.

I'm one of them and I did.

From you referring to Cornell University as "Woke Clown World" to your attitudes towards trans folks wanting to be referred to with respect, yeah I've read a lot of your posts.
But no, I'm not inclined to go back through zillions of posts.
Again.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

No, it does not. I do not employ your MO.

Of course it assumes the mind of somebody to say they carried out an action achieve X.

Under the assumption that there are no relevant unknowns, would you think the team's behavior was acceptable?
The assumption of no relevant unknowns allows you to be unconstrained by possible unknowns in constructing your response. You have a demonstrated flair for fantasy, so I look forward to your response.

Whether the team's behaviour was unacceptable depends.

Only someone who is either afraid to answer the question or who doesn't understand the English language or who is simply trolling would give such an answer.

You are wrong. I do not employ your MO. But you keep doing what you do - fling ad hom accusations in your apologia of assholish behavior.

You called the coach a first class asshole. You did that based on one action he took.

You did this and everyone can see it.

Yes, I did - his action in that regard makes him a first class asshole. As a basketball coach - the clear context that anyone with even minimal reading comprehension - the man is a first class asshole.

But hey, you keep doing what you do - asshole apologia.

 

[Metaphor]

First of all, one would have to be an insensitive prick to not understand this would be the result.

I've already addressed this once, responding to you specifically.

'Not recognising X as the result' is not the same as 'did A in order to achieve X'.

You also are now presenting a false dichotomy. Either deliberate asshole or insensitive prick. Non. I reject your false dichotomy.

I don't think anyone here thinks his assholish behavior is all encompassing to the coaches entire life.

Calling somebody a first class asshole does encompass the coach's entire life.

Note the distinction between saying 'you lied to me' and 'you are a liar'. The latter is a judgment about a long-term, inherent quality.

 

[Metaphor]

Only someone who is either afraid to answer the question or who doesn't understand the English language or who is simply trolling would give such an answer.

I don't understand your request as you've made it. It makes no sense.

Yes, I did - his action in that regard makes him a first class asshole. As a basketball coach - the clear context that anyone with even minimal reading comprehension - the man is a first class asshole.

But hey, you keep doing what you do - asshole apologia.

I disagree that he is a first class asshole, even as a coach, based on the evidence of this one incident.

I'm withdrawing from responding to you for the moment, because your relentless habit of attacking me at the end of each post is taking its toll.

 

[Metaphor]

From you referring to Cornell University as "Woke Clown World"

That is not a statement about anybody's mind.

to your attitudes towards trans folks wanting to be referred to with respect, yeah I've read a lot of your posts.

I don't quite know what that has to do with claiming to know anybody's mind.

I've read a lot of your posts.
But no, I'm not inclined to go back through zillions of posts.
Again.
Tom

If you see me making an unwarranted inference about somebody's state of mind, I suggest you call it out.

 

[Jarhyn]

Either deliberate asshole or insensitive prick. Non. I reject your false dichotomy.

To reject a false dichotomy, it must be exposed with a third option. Disproof by counterexample.

You are missing your counter-example.

 

[Metaphor]

Either deliberate asshole or insensitive prick. Non. I reject your false dichotomy.

To reject a false dichotomy, it must be exposed with a third option. Disproof by counterexample.

You are missing your counter-example.

No. False dichotomies can be rejected without naming any other options at all.

That some people on this thread can imagine no non-malicious interpretations of the game result is a failure of their imagination (and yours). For example, if we take that the cultural expectation of not 'running up the score' was unspoken and informal but nevertheless present and the coach knew about it, he could have miscalculated what he needed to do in order to prevent it. Perhaps his instructions to his team were rejected. Perhaps the coach did not understand the cultural expectation (which might make him 'insensitive' but I don't think it would make him a 'prick'). Perhaps he understood the cultural expectation but weighed other expectations higher.

 

[Jarhyn]

Either deliberate asshole or insensitive prick. Non. I reject your false dichotomy.

To reject a false dichotomy, it must be exposed with a third option. Disproof by counterexample.

You are missing your counter-example.

No. False dichotomies can be rejected without naming any other options at all.

For to declare false dichotomy, one must break the dichotomous presentation. By exposing any third option or set of third options.

It needs to actually be falsified.

 

[laughing dog]

Only someone who is either afraid to answer the question or who doesn't understand the English language or who is simply trolling would give such an answer.

I don't understand your request as you've made it. It makes no sense.

Thanks, your response confirms the 2nd choice

Yes, I did - his action in that regard makes him a first class asshole. As a basketball coach - the clear context that anyone with even minimal reading comprehension - the man is a first class asshole.

But hey, you keep doing what you do - asshole apologia.

I disagree that he is a first class asshole, even as a coach, based on the evidence of this one incident.

I'm withdrawing from responding to you for the moment, because your relentless habit of attacking me at the end of each post is taking its toll.

Technically, there is little evidence that you are responding. Moreover, accurate descriptions are not attacks.

 

[Jarhyn]

accurate descriptions are not attacks.

They can be, after I think about it for more than a second or so.

I could accurately describe someone's genitals publicly, and that could absolutely be an attack.

Accurately describing bad behavior, however, is not an attack. It's a defense.