This was a team event, he should of been there to support his TEAM... He only pulled the no show for his own personal selfish political statement...

lol at this ChexxWithxRaisins reg

whoops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9omebbyf0M

I'll address the parts that weren't angry rants about the media or Obama, but it's worth noting that you chose to ignore those in your response. Also I'm not sure that you understand the crux of my point but if necessary I'll elaborate on it at the end of the post. FWIW I think it would be better served if you simply reread what I previously wrote through an unbiased lens and realized that I'm focused more on Thomas's decision to use his absence as a form of political protest and draw attention to himself, and not on the actual skipping of the event for whatever reasons.

tl;dr cliffs: almost everything you said was a logical fallacy. You're entitled to your opinion but don't attack mine with absurd claims and personal attacks.

this is a straw man argument. It has little in common with the actual situation and doesn't address the subject at hand. Obviously no one is suggesting that being a good teammate extends to participating in moral/ethical (if not federal) crimes in order to "stay in line".

also note again that I have not once suggested that his declining the invitation to be my problem with his actions.

This is clearly a red herring argument. Regardless of whether or not this is true it doesn't change the judgement of his actions. Also note that whether or not I agree with the media's "punishment" for Thomas's "crime" it doesn't change my opinion on his actions. It's an appeal to pity, and even if it worked it doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with his using this team event to draw attention to his personal political beliefs.




Here you are clearly confusing cause and effect. While you might disagree with the editorial opinion of Thomas's actions you are falsely claiming that they created the story. Thomas created the story and we'd have to assume he's a simpleton to believe that he did it with no idea that any media member would notice or comment. And considering that everyone discussing this agrees that this was an intentional politically driven action, I doubt you're trying to argue that his intention was that no one discuss his absence and statement. The media simply reported on his actions as he intended for them to do, and whether or not you agree with some members editorializing of the issue you can't deny that if he had not made the statement the story would not exist, and the resulting fall out would not land on his teammates or impact the enjoyment of the fans.

(also note that your metaphor is racist, unoriginal, and not in the slightest bit funny)


this comment doesn't make any sense. It is a response to a statement in an attempt by myself to draw a personal parallel to help illustrate why people might react this way to Thomas's actions (and why those reactions might be justified). I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but I think if you reread my post you might have a better understanding of what I was suggesting.


first off this is nothing more than a personal attack and doesn't counter a single thing that I've said. Secondly, I said it before and I'll reiterate that I'm the authority on my own opinion and I've given my opinion in response to someone's question. If you disagree with it and have some logical or reasonable argument to the contrary I'll happily discuss, but claiming that my opinion is worthless because I'm not an authority is just silly.

this is another ad hominem but is more in the circumstantial vein. Whether or not this is the case you can't deny that Thomas's statement and the resulting publicity did not create a positive or favorable situation for his teammates or organization. I'm not trying to defend the tradition, or claim that Thomas should be beholden to it (although if you'd like we can have a separate discussion about the intent of the POTUS in having these events). What I am claiming is that it was not classy to use this opportunity to make a stump speech.

this is kind of a "poisoning the well" fallacy which is another form of ad hominem. You're not debating whether or not his decision was good or bad, selfless or selfish, or whether or not it had a negative impact on his teammates. You're debating whether or how the media should have covered his (essentially) facebook press release of a political stance. You're also trying to make this into a relativistic argument. Basically because there are more important topics or people are doing worse things what he is doing is ok. That really doesn't have any relevance to the discussion. I'm not arguing that Tim Thomas is a bad person or morally corrupt because of this decisions. Quite the contrary I've expressed that I believe him to be a good person and possibly a good teammate. But the question was not what did I think of Tim Thomas the man it was what did I think of this action.

and one last parting ad hominem for good measure.

I'm fine dropping the topic that we started with since it's clear that you disagree with my opinion and that is entirely reasonable. But if you're going to make some absurd rant post that has a strong air of personal attack in it I'll happily just break it down into the fallacious rhetoric that it is. I won't lie I did enjoy writing this response.

point by point:

a) detriment of the fan would be turning what should be a pleasant story that would create a positive feeling or memory into a political debate having nothing to do with the original purpose of the event. I believe this likely happened for some Boston fans as a result of the local media covering Thomas's politically charged action and press release.

b) detriment of his teammates would be something to the effect of a distraction from their celebration of a group accomplishment because of one person's self interested action. I'm sure they've had to answer questions on the subject, been involved in discussions about it, and it could have possibly created divisiveness in the locker room (comments coming from the Bruins organization would suggest it might have).

finally you essentially contradict your last point by quoting an oft repeated phrase and then showing that it doesn't hold up. While that phrase makes a larger point in certain context I don't think it sheds any great truth on this situation. I think your point would be better served if you could give a list of reasons why the media reaction to Thomas's action and statement could be a positive result for the team, the fans, and the organization. That would (hint hint) be a great route for a proponent of his side to take this discussion.

i havent followed the story but whats the big deal?

thomas is using this platform to make a political statement. no big deal imo


i mean if he was going to the whitehouse with just his wife for this stuff then yeah....awkward. but none of the bruins showing up (that matter :-) are even american. shake hands, kiss babies, take photos, and play grabass

as far as team publicity goes i think more people are pissed at the government than not so i can't see the back lash being negative overall

it's not a particularly big deal. I simply thought it was in poor taste as he could have picked other opportunities to make a political statement without drawing attention away from his teammates and the honor they were receiving.

I will say that across the political spectrum the local media and fan reaction has been almost overwhelmingly not in favor of Thomas. And it's now become an organizational issue because the topic of whether or not he has a future with the team has become more prominent (something that would have eventually been brought up either way) as a member of the organization made some disparaging comments about him as both pertaining to this action and as a teammate in the wake of this story.

fwiw I only engaged in this long winded argument because I was bored and thought that breaking down how absurd jah's response would be entertaining.

bbj hit 15 min ago again on 100fr.
bbj was a bit over $300k+ now at $63k.
two fish hit it. horse of mine was sitting and got $9k.

QFT

There goes my WR. Bye bye fish. Congrats on the bink

I am not sure what you mean by distraction. The team still got their glory. All it shows is that he is a thinking individual, and actually cares about his country. The media choose to make it a big deal. Just because he is Tim Thomas, doesn't mean he can't blog on the internet and explain his reasoning for missing the event.

His statement was worded perfectly, if its what it takes to wake some sheep up, then why the **** not? We can even make an argument he is doing it for the greater good. But who cares about liberty, when we got sports to watch all day, lots food to chew on and we are willing to give up freedom for security? Yeah Tim Thomas is the villain and Obama is the hero!

FML

rakebackpro no more!

thepizzlefosho


Just curious, were you this upset when players chose not to go to the white house when bush was president?

oh and when they didn't go, the media also went and got their reasoning for skipping the event.

So we are now grinding 100nl? What happened to 50nl?

where can you get access to who won?

who are these people?!?

someone i know was on the table, and sent me the picture of it.

i picked the wrong week to stop grindin the hundo




(young guys prob wont get the reference)

someone else you know was on the table too, but the dumbass got up 30-45 min before jackpot hit.

lol clearly ad hominem.

but here's a couple of things:

1) fwiw I'm a registered republican, identify as a libertarian, and am not happy with Obama. I would vote for Ron Paul if he got the republican nomination, but if it's Mitt or Newt I'll likely just abstain from voting.

2) No one asked about my opinions on past players skipping a visit with the president, but if you have a case that you'd like to discuss I'd be happy to do it. But if you'll reread things that I've written you'll note that I said that Thomas was not the first person to choose to skip a trip to the White House he was just the first that (I believe) that had used his absence to draw attention to a political statement.

3) Instead of trying to express disagreement by changing the subject, asking unrelated questions, attacking my potential political affiliation, or whatever other fallacious arguments you guys have chosen, how about someone actually address what I've said? Juan Valdez came the closest, and I responded as to why I think the action and the related press might be a negative and a positive. But at least he had a reasonable and on-topic opinion, that (while I disagree with) I think merits consideration.

This has nothing to do with party affiliation, who is president, or the stance of the person that took the action. I have no love for Obama, or TBH either main party in power. I don't necessarily disagree with Thomas's assertions that there is something very wrong with how the country is being run. I just disagree with his choice to use this situation to make a stump speech because of the detrimental effect I think it had on his teammates, the organization, and the fans. I believe if he had said he skipped the event to stay at home and rest up it would have been just fine.

vote Mitt pizzle be a pal

I'd bet my roll Obama gets reelected.

while we are on the debate of politics, is it just me or does Newt Gringrich strike you guys as like an internet troll? the guy is really good at getting off topic and talking about something not having to do with the question.

also, I am too lazy to do research but is Romney really as pro-government as Santorum pointed out today, or is that just muck-raking at its finest?

don't say let me google it for you lol

Anyone know how long BCP wires are taking these days?