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

[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.