Fighting Fefnir
I made no claim, ********. I challenged yours. I have no burden of proof. You do.
You said:
"Okay, you really are arguing out of your a**. " <---Claim
I said:
"Howso?"
Then you didn't actually answer the question. Don't make claims if you can't (or are too lazy to) support them.
Forthermore, what claim did I make? That I have witnessed teams be penalized for talking to judges in less than respectful tones? Because that is the only thing I claimed to you.
Fighting Fefnir
Because it being rhetorical is more important than it being ******** irrelevant? Rhetorical or not, it is absolutely pointless as a question.
So what was the rhetorical question? I can't seem to find it. All I remember is you jumping in, totally changing the subject, and then accusing me of changing the subject. I don't remember asking you a rhetorical question. The only one I remember asking so early into the conversation was about back-talking judges. That wasn't rhetorical.
Fighting Fefnir
That the coach could be merciful. I said this already.
I never said that the coach couldn't be merciful. Direct quote, please.
Fighting Fefnir
You didn't pick up the mistake when you wrote it, tard. That puts me firmly above you in deductive reasoning.
Well, you apparently need the self-esteem boost. I shan't get in your way.
Fighting Fefnir
I'm not hunting for your first post.
Well, I suspected that you randomly picked one out. And out of context at that.
Fighting Fefnir
And how can I read what you were responding to when you REMOVE EVERYTHING BEFORE THE ONE SPECIFIC LINE YOU'RE ADDRESSING?!
Because that one specific post is all you need. I only asked you to look at the response to which I replied. It was addressed to Appel Juice.
I think you said that I changed my opinion at some point. (But I don't remember at this point.) I asked for support of that. (Or maybe I only asked you to support that I changed the subject.) If the former, then you didn't do that. You didn't do the latter, either. I never changed the subject.
Fighting Fefnir
You didn't say the wrong thing, you up and ******** changed the subject. It WAS about the scenario you proposed, flawed as it was. I may have replied to start our interaction, but you started the totally off topic and different conversation between us with an unneeded subject change.
I understand how you were confused now. You weren't paying any attention. I'll break it down for you since you are so lazy.
Yes, the original scenario was about the coach. I never gravitated from that. You took the "current topic" post out of context.
This is where is started.
My next relevant response was to The Fab Four telling him/her that his/her scenario was no similar in that the students (presumably) did not agree to not wear the clothing.
Then I asked Appel Juice what the (significant) difference between mine and the OP's was. I said that, in both cases, the student must agree in order to be punished.
Then I said something to The Fab Four about smoking, which spun this whole off-topic conversation about the legality of smoking.
At this point the conversation was really off-topic.
Skip to the comment to which you replied (and the source of your confusion).
Setar said:
"There's a big difference between smoking on campus and going on Facebook to b***h about something."
Which implies that dissimilar violations cannot be punished in the same way.
To that, I said:
"Yeah, and? There's a big difference between badmouthing a coach to his/her face and snorting a line, but both will get you kicked off the team."
The emphasis here is not on the judge (what I meant to say), but the fact that two dissimilar acts can receive the same punishment. That was an
example. I made no attempt to change the subject, and it never really did change the subject. In fact, the only person who is caught up in that irrelevant detail is you. Had you been paying attention, you would know that, with the exception of our conversation, no one is using judges as a main point. (Again, I was using them to illustrate my main point.)
Fighting Fefnir
Good to see you can actually read.
Which was obvious from the start.
Fighting Fefnir
You gave the absolute that the player/s must either be thrown off the team or not. I would point up, but again, you get rid of context when you quote, so look in my last post, labeled 'original topic for your words.
You are super lazy. Really, now, you only quote the post to which you are currently responding (yet yell at me for doing the same thing), and yet I don't use that as an excuse to not support my claims or explain myself. Note all the above quotes I hunted down.
Fighting Fefnir
You said in clarification that she must, by school rules, sign the contract (though this isn't universal)
I said that she must agree to it in order for her to be punished. In this case, the tube top example someone else gave applies. A girl getting in trouble for wearing tube tops when she never agreed to not wear them.
In which cases is it not universal? Note that contract is an example of the fact that the student must agree. Contracts are, by far, the most popular method because they are documented.
Fighting Fefnir
and that the contract included a no drinking rule. This doesn't include the coach's option to suspend the girls for a game or two in punishment.
Because, in reality, a coach can't punish a student in a manner not agree upon by the student and the school. If it is written into the contract that violating students will be kicked off the team, then they will be kicked off the team. Likewise, if it is written into the contract that violating students might suffer other punishments, then that applies. The point is not the specific list of offenses or their punishments. Anything (legal) can be in there. The point is that, by signing it, the student agrees to the terms and conditions.
I could easily say that you're arguing absolutes by not including that the coach(es) can make the guilty student student run 50 laps or do 200 push-ups, but I won't because it isn't necessary. The contract is pretty absolute in itself. Otherwise, it serves no purpose.
Damn. Now I have to deal with you pulling arguments out of thin air.
Fighting Fefnir
What you're saying there has nothing to do with what was said by me before AND by you.
Um. Okay.
Fighting Fefnir
Except where you likened it to underage drinking, which is illegal. Several times.
Which does not imply that posting on facebook is illegal, especially since the point was not the legality but the fact that they were both violation of schools rules and both punishable.
If I say, "I like chocolate and television," does that automatically imply that chocolate is like a television or that television is a flavor? No.
Fighting Fefnir
No, because law in general is irrelevant. You think I'm referring only to the legal ramifications, but this is only in response to your comparison of underage drinking and posting things on Facebook.
We both agree that it is irrelevant. Stop bringing it up like it means something.
And, as I said to Setar, the OP never said it has to take place in HS. Why not have it take place in a college setting with college students who are of age? Are they allowed to compete while under the influence? I'm pretty sure they're not. Again, I don't see how it makes a difference.
Would it be easier for you all if I changed the example to smoking (any substance) instead of drinking? That way, the students can be 18 and play on the team. It might be easier for you guys to digest the fact that the legality of it changes nothing.
Fighting Fefnir
Not at all. You just didn't get that I was talking about your comparison.
Can you associate that with your statement next time? I still don't see how that is the case.
Fighting Fefnir
Your point is invalid if badmouthing people on Facebook isn't illegal.
Which still doesn't matter. I don't understand the connection. Instead of merely connecting the two, I am requesting an explanation of how the legality changes the outcome (of being kicked of the team) in any significant way. Neither you nor Setar has done that. If it is so easy and comprehensible, why do you both refuse to break it down?
Fighting Fefnir
Because it wasn't, ********]
If we are going by my scenario, then it very much was. We can assume that it was in the OP's scenario too. What gives the coach or principal or any such faulty member the privilege (or right) to punish a student for something he or she never agreed not to do? If it wasn't a rule that the student agreed to, then it makes no sense that he or she can be punished.
Fighting Fefnir
Generalization. I already have given an example that I know is true from first hand experience that proves this is not an absolute like you're saying it is.
Once again, then how are the coaches allowed to kick the students off the team? You're saying there was no agreement involved?
Fighting Fefnir
Maybe you should look it the ******** up then?
...Which changes what, in either case?
And lol. Stop getting your undies in a bunch.
Fighting Fefnir
Again, you bring up LAWS to support a bad theory. Why do you think laws keep coming up? BECAUSE YOU BRING IT UP, DUMBSHIT.
I don't care that laws are brought up. I care about when. I find it annoying when you guys bring up the legality of something and refuse to explain how to changes the scope of things.
You should reconsider being on the interwebz if you can't handle it.
Fighting Fefnir
A couple of things wrong with this. Some schools do not require players to sign a contract,
Then the student never agreed to anything. How can he or she be punished for something he or she never agreed to?
Fighting Fefnir
the contracts will vary among coaches,
If the coach hands out a contract (which is an agreement meant to be signed) then the student must follow the contract. The details don't matter.
How is this "wrong"? I didn't say it was a state law. I never even mentioned that in what you quoted.
Fighting Fefnir
and the school is not the one punishing the player here, the coach is.
...Wow.
I am not sure how you reached the conclusion that the coach is not part of the faculty (which is the only way I am interpreting your response). It's like saying, "The school didn't give you detention. Your teacher did."
Well, let me ask instead. How do you define a punishment enacted by the school. Who does that involve?
Fighting Fefnir
The basis is wrong, and it's all speculation because you can't prove it has to be this way.
Okay. You need to explain to me how the school can punish a student for something he or she never agreed to (not) do. Either way, exceptions don't invalidate the general rule.
Fighting Fefnir
Your point has no ******** merit because it's a ******** red herring.
Howso?
Your only point here seems to be that the student cannot get into trouble because it it not illegal for him/her to say certain things on FB. I said that it does not need to be illegal. To illustrate that, I said that there is no law (I am aware of) that states that students cannot go to FB, MySpace, Twitter, etc. at school, and yet schools block access and students can get in trouble for accessing such sites.
You keep suggesting that, in order for a school to punish a student for saying something about the school online, it must be illegal to say something about the school online, which is not true. Again, schools have their own rules.
Now will you please respond accordingly instead of pretending that it is a red herring?
Fighting Fefnir
For the same reason it's hard to grasp clouds with your bare hands. Your stance keeps shifting around and has little substance.
My stance has not shifted once. From the beginning, it has been that, although I don't see the necessity of coaches forcing their students to friend them on FB, I see no problem with holding students accountable for what they say. My mind has not changed a bit.
Fighting Fefnir
Then stop saying that all schools must because it is a state law! ********]
1) I never said that it is a state law. I said that it probably is.
2) I only said that once.
3) How does your response, in any way, refer to what I said?
4) You still need to explain to me how the student can be punished for (not) doing something he or she never agreed to (not) do.
Quote:
Fighting Fefnir
My soccer coach gave us a contract to sign that had nothing to do with a school stipulation. Whether or not it's a school rule is also entirely irrelevant to the consequences of said stipulation, and the coach's options.
Once again, if it is not in the contract then you don't have to do it. You never agreed to it.
Fighting Fefnir
Reread that. I was illustrating my point that not all schools require a contract and that it is the COACH'S responsibility to deal with that contract.
...Which refutes what part of what I said? Are you now suggesting that the coaches can do as they please?
I am asking how the student can be punished or kicked off the team.
Fighting Fefnir
No, I implied that it was not further reduced beyond reasonable standards.
Not in my opinion, but I am willing to concede to this point. It doesn't automatically imply it in the same way that my comparing facebook situation and underage drinking does not automatically imply that FB situation is illegal.
Fighting Fefnir
Keep up then, b***h. LRN2COMPREHESION
You're one to talk. I was confused because you had taken my statement out of context. I was talking to Setar about something, while you were referencing the comment I made to Appel Juice.
And you don't think you could have phrased it better?
That can be easily read as, "You were referring to on the field contact when talking about posting something online?"
Which doesn't make sense to me.
Another lesson: Keep the sentence in the positive instead of the negative. It is much easier to understand.
Ex: "I never wanted to not go to school on Monday!"
vs.
"I wanted to go to school on Monday!"
That's an easy example because it is easier to explain the difference. (We can use the more difficult example of, "I never didn't want to not to school on Monday!"
wink
Applying it to what you said:
"You said you weren't referring to off the field conduct when talking about posting something online?"
vs. what I interpreted it as:
"You said you were referring to on the field conduct when talking about posting something online?"
Fighting Fefnir
Because surely you aren't doubting my ability to understand your bullshit points the first time I read through, right?
Well, you've taken several out of context (or should I say the same one out of context several times?) and you've yet to demonstrate how my points are fallacious. Not to mention you keep calling some of my responses red herrings when they are not, instead of answering the questions.
Fighting Fefnir
Except you ******** did. you applied it to dealing with people outside of sports fields, like it should be a way of life.
No I didn't. I only used it in that one example. I never said anything about sportsmanship in the original scenario. The only thing I said about it was in regards to judges, which sort of implies that it is on the field.
The same statement taken out of context yet again.
Fighting Fefnir
Which is an invalid hypothetical because you only gave him two options when in reality there were more. It's called a false dilemma.
If no contract is involved, perhaps (which you still need to explain how that works). However, there is a contract involved in my scenario. The violation was listed, as was the punishment. You never had to sign contracts. Okay. Fine. I did. Always. Schools around here hand out contracts and ask students to sign them. I've been to nine so far. (Four elementary, two middle, three high.) Which means that my scenario is not impractical, as you keep suggesting. It happens.
Fighting Fefnir
Oh yes, EXACTLY WHERE I TOLD YOU THAT YOU UP AND RANDOMLY CHANGED SUBJECTS, YOU SAY THAT YOU CHANGED SUBJECTS. Way to go, ********. LRN2CONSISTENCY
No, I didn't. It was an example to illustrate the larger point, which involved no subject change.
You see, that's what you get for randomly jumping into conversations.
Fighting Fefnir
Oh really? How did you arrive at that, since you, in the last sentence here, just said that was the START of this line of conversation. If that's the start, I've been here the whole ******** time, dumbass.
I meant that you haven't been paying attention to the entire thread. Obviously, if I said, "Since you jumped into the conversation," I am referencing what was going on
before you jumped into the conversation.
Fighting Fefnir
Your clarification CHANGED THE WHOLE SUBJECT. It's not a clarification, it's covering your a**.
No, it didn't. Note that the subject of that post was, "Setar, violations need not be similar in order to have the same or similar punishment."
The judge example was just that: an example. I could have used any two examples that are dissimilar to illustrate the point.
Also note that that was not in response to my post to Appel Juice (i.e. the scenario). By that point, the conversation had digressed.
Like I said. You weren't paying any attention.
Fighting Fefnir
WHICH IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ******** LINE OF THOUGHT.
No it isn't, considering what it is illustrating.
Fighting Fefnir
WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU "CLARIFIED".
Okay. I now understand that this is too complex for you to understand. You are the only one here who seems so completely lost that I have no choice but to believe that it no longer matters.
Moving on.
Fighting Fefnir
BULLSHIT. You said right above that the school HAS TO because of state laws (not true, but what you said nonetheless). THAT MEANS THE ADMINISTRATION.
No, I said that it was probably a state law, not that it was. Provide a direct quote if I did. Furthermore, that doesn't have to to with sportsmanship.
Wait a minute. When did I say a school has to anything? I said that a student has to sign a contract (which had nothing to do with sportsmanship). Direct quote otherwise, please, because I am searching through my "My Posts" section and I see nothing about "the school has to".
Fighting Fefnir
BECAUSE YOU DID, RIGHT IN THIS ******** POST REPLYING TO ME.
You mean the part about me saying that I never said anything about the admin? Because I'm pretty sure that doesn't count.
Fighting Fefnir
YOU'VE BEEN SAYING THE SCHOOL HAS TO PUNISH THE PLAYER BECAUSE THEY MADE THEM SIGN THE CONTRACT. READ YOUR OWN GOD DAMN POSTS.
1) I never said that in relation to sportsmanship.
2) I never said the school
had to punish the student. Direct quote otherwise, please.
3) I said that the coach can punish the student if he or she disobeys the rules. The emphasis was
always on the student breaking the rules, not the coach having to punish him or her.
4) This is another one you repeatedly keep taking out of context.
Fighting Fefnir
And you are a skilled bullshit artist. You can't even keep your opinions straight in the course of ONE POST. Probably works better for you when people can't read what you say, right?
My opinion has not changed once. All you've done is complain because I used an example, and then acted as if that example was my main point.
1) I never changed the subject. The only reason we are talking about this is because you jumped into the conversation and endlessly took my statements out of context.
2) I never changed my opinion.
Fighting Fefnir
"State rules require players to sign a contract."
"School rules require players to sign a contract."
"You implied that free speech has no limits."
I could go on.
Are those direct quotes? I do remember the third one. If the first ones are quotes (that I probably only made once and have taken them back several times already), then they still make no difference. You need to explain to me how the coach can punish a student for (not) doing something he or she never agreed to (not) do.
Fighting Fefnir
If you couldn't tell, my s**t has been in order from the beginning.
Fooled me.
Fighting Fefnir
You're the one who can't even keep your opinion straight in the same post.
Again, it hasn't changed at all. I'll state it again and you can compare:
I don't see anything wrong with coaches holding students' actions against them, though I don't see the point in forcing the students to befriend them on FB or any such site.
Direct quote where I contradicted myself.
Fighting Fefnir
Now, decide what the ******** view you want to debate from is, because you're bouncing from one idea to the next in order to try and get an 'advantage' over me.
You need some sleep. Bed. Nao.
100
200
300
100
300
200
100
50
