Posted by MikeT23 on 1/7/2014 11:12:00 AM (view original):
The "point" is to stop discussion?    How long would you have your "national forum" if no one discussed anything in it?

You misunderstood.

Pedro Gomez has a vote for the Hall of Fame. Pedro Gomez does stupid things with his Hall of Fame vote. Voting for Jay Bell, for example. If we don't say anything about Gomez being a ******* idiot, or at least doing idiotic things with his vote, nothing will ever stop him from continuing to do idiotic things with his vote.

All in all, the Hall of Fame vote is incredibly unimportant. But substitute "Your Local Congressman" for "Pedro Gomez" and maybe this idea makes more sense to you.

Posted by masterdebate on 1/7/2014 11:14:00 AM (view original):
So, universally, you are in favor of being able to shut down a debate when one side thinks the other side are idiots and retain the right to call them that?

Do I actually have the power to do that? I wish someone told me before.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/7/2014 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/7/2014 11:12:00 AM (view original):
The "point" is to stop discussion?    How long would you have your "national forum" if no one discussed anything in it?

You misunderstood.

Pedro Gomez has a vote for the Hall of Fame. Pedro Gomez does stupid things with his Hall of Fame vote. Voting for Jay Bell, for example. If we don't say anything about Gomez being a ******* idiot, or at least doing idiotic things with his vote, nothing will ever stop him from continuing to do idiotic things with his vote.

All in all, the Hall of Fame vote is incredibly unimportant. But substitute "Your Local Congressman" for "Pedro Gomez" and maybe this idea makes more sense to you.

You think he does stupid things with his vote(but I'm glad to see you know it's not very important what he does with his vote) but maybe he believes Morris was better than Mussina.  Personally, I don't think either should be in the HOF so a vote for one seems like a dumb vote.  I applaud his ability to not vote for two players who shouldn't be in the HOF.


The difference between Pedro Gomez and an elected official is that I get a choice.   If, say a candidate was intent on pushing thru a medical plan that doesn't really address the problems with healthcare, I could choose not to vote for him.   Pedro Gomez gets to die with his vote in hand.

Unless enough people complain about Pedro Gomez being an idiot that ESPN fires him or the BBWAA changes the way they conduct their HOF elections.

That congress gets elected doesn't really change my point, which is that sometimes it's appropriate to say "so and so is an idiot."

Now you're campaigning to get Pedro Gomez fired because you don't like the way he votes for HOF candidates.

You're a real piece of work.

Pedro Gomez's job is to write about baseball. Pedro Gomez has proven, through his Hall of Fame votes, that he either doesn't really understand baseball or doesn't give a **** about the Hall of Fame.

What would you suggest?

Pretty sure ESPN doesn't really care how Pedro Gomez votes for the HOF.    And if you're waiting for the BBWAA to change, get a Snickers. 

If you don't understand the difference between an elected official and Pedro Gomez getting a HOF vote, I'm not sure what to say. 

No matter what...can we all agree that Pedro Gomez is a ******* IDIOT??? I mean, seriously, Jay Bell??? Morris over Mussina??? I'm a Tiger slapdick BIG time and I LOVE Jack Morris, but he doesn't belong in the HOF, and, in my opinion, neither does Mussina (OR BLYLEVEN!!!) Again, it's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of REALLY CONSISTENT or Hall of REALLY GOOD, or the Hall of INCREDIBLY ABOVE AVERAGE for 20 ******* YEARS. Morris was a GREAT big game pitcher, and Mussina was a VERY solid #2 for about 20 years, but that doesn't put you in the HOF in my eyes.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/7/2014 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Pedro Gomez's job is to write about baseball. Pedro Gomez has proven, through his Hall of Fame votes, that he either doesn't really understand baseball or doesn't give a **** about the Hall of Fame.

What would you suggest?

I would suggest that because Pedro Gomez makes his living off of baseball, and (I presume) you do not, that maybe you should STFU about Pedro Gomez's knowledge of baseball.

Gomez strikes me as a guy who NEVER got his *** beat even ONCE in his life. Those kind of guys should just STFU.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/7/2014 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by masterdebate on 1/7/2014 11:14:00 AM (view original):
So, universally, you are in favor of being able to shut down a debate when one side thinks the other side are idiots and retain the right to call them that?

Do I actually have the power to do that? I wish someone told me before.

Its an ethical theory proposed by Immanual Kant, the Categorical Imperative. To find whether an action is moral, imagine a world where everyone does said act. If everyone cheated on their taxes, for example, would not make a good world.

So imagine a world where everyone could shut down any conversation and say the other side are idiots. I'm guessing you wouldn't want to live in that world.

So you seriously think Gomez should lose his job because he voted for Morris and not Mussina?    What happened to "the Hall of Fame vote is incredibly unimportant"?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/7/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Pretty sure ESPN doesn't really care how Pedro Gomez votes for the HOF.    And if you're waiting for the BBWAA to change, get a Snickers. 

If you don't understand the difference between an elected official and Pedro Gomez getting a HOF vote, I'm not sure what to say. 

I understand that there is a difference between the two. I'm saying that that difference doesn't matter to my point, which is that it can sometimes be appropriate to call someone out for doing something stupid. 

Posted by masterdebate on 1/7/2014 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/7/2014 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by masterdebate on 1/7/2014 11:14:00 AM (view original):
So, universally, you are in favor of being able to shut down a debate when one side thinks the other side are idiots and retain the right to call them that?

Do I actually have the power to do that? I wish someone told me before.

Its an ethical theory proposed by Immanual Kant, the Categorical Imperative. To find whether an action is moral, imagine a world where everyone does said act. If everyone cheated on their taxes, for example, would not make a good world.

So imagine a world where everyone could shut down any conversation and say the other side are idiots. I'm guessing you wouldn't want to live in that world.

I can call someone an idiot but it doesn't actually shut down the debate. As evidenced by all the times I've called mike and tec and biz idiots (and vice versa).

I don't think it's inappropriate.   But you can't compare an elected official to a sportswriter/reporter with a HOF.   At least not legitimately.