Monday, October 23, 2006

 

I'm Just The Messenger

Interesting. Pierre Maguire just advocated eliminating head shots in the NHL. 2 minutes for unintentional, 4 for intentional, and a list that identifies players who habitually head hunt, similar to the diving list.

And before people start telling me that the game is too fast to ever properly penalize such things, I'll just point out that the NFL has similar penalties that punishes blows to the head, both on the line and in tackling. Intent is irrelevant.

Here it comes...

Comments:

I don't know whether having Pierre Macquire in your corner reinforces your argument or weakens it beyond repair.
 


I know. It's not really my argument though. I just think it's worth discussing.
 


And for the record, Glenn Healy was opposed to it. So it all balances out.
 


I think it's worth noting that there's almost no similarity between a football tackle and a hockey hit.

A hockey hit and a football hit are very similar. A receiver getting popped over the middle by a saftey is no different than a forward getting popped over the middle by a defenceman.

You're on solid ground giving you far more control over your body in terms of positioning your body for a hit and lowering your center of gravity.

Ice is also solid ground. So too is a wet field and a snow filled field.

I mean, I don't think anyone in their right mind supports head shots, so I think that fact that they haven't yet banned them tells you everything you need to know about the feasibility of doing so.

I think the fact that a great number of NHL players refuse to wear visors for fear of being called pussies counters this argument. There's a lot of ignorant machismo still in this game.

I'm glad you brought it up, because it kind of gets to what I was saying about the NFL. The NFL wanted to protect their players, they changed the rules, and players adapted. Nobody lost their mind over it. But hockey people are as orthodox as baseball people, always freaking about the purity of the game. I mean, I could turn the argument that the game is faster, players are bigger, and equipment is more deadly to the side of the person who wants to ban heats to the head. All give credence to changing the rules. But anything that alters what we as Canadians define as "real hockey" is automatically taboo.
 


See? Andy didn't need Maguire's help--he's perfectly capable of building a lame ad hominem argument alll by himself, even before anybody actually bothers to disagree with him.
 


If the NHL really wanted to eliminate head shots, they sure wouldn't do anything "similar to" what they do for diving!
 


Ah for crying out loud. Why don't we put diapers on them too?

The NHL needs to go the other way. Each period they should designate a player for each side who can be beaten up that period with no penalty.

Slash, hook, whatever.

Of course they should stop the play if he's bleeding from more than two places.
 


See? Andy didn't need Maguire's help--he's perfectly capable of building a lame ad hominem argument alll by himself, even before anybody actually bothers to disagree with him.

Actually, the ad hominem argument was in response to the Maguire shot, so I wouldn't say I did it in isolation.

Plus, "lame" is redundant usage with the term ad hominem. Is there a logical fallacy that isn't lame? So take that, brainiac.
 


Football hits are similar to hockey? Are you kidding? When was the last time you saw a hockey player lead with his helmet?

- Rod
 


Gee, Maguire vs. Healy. That's like a gunfight without any bullets.
 


Rod beat me to it. Football you lead with your helmet, Andy. Completely different type of hit. When was the last time you saw a football player hit with his shoulder?

So long as it's shoulder to head, it's legal. It's regretable... but it's a necessary evil.

-PDO
 


Society is becoming too protective. How is anybody going to learn what not to do if they don't learn why...

Next thing you know they'll be banning tag in school...

Oh, wait a minute...
 


See? Andy didn't need Maguire's help--he's perfectly capable of building a lame ad hominem argument alll by himself, even before anybody actually bothers to disagree with him.

Whoa. I just realized that Mclea took his comment down. Now your comment makes sense.
 


Plus, "lame" is redundant usage with the term ad hominem. Is there a logical fallacy that isn't lame? So take that, brainiac.
___

An ad hominem need not necessarily be "lame", if "lame" is to be understood as weak, unsophisticated or impaired. Therefore, the automatic redundancy you imply is simply not there.

Furthermore, an ad hominem argument is not necessarily logically false; it merely suggests that the argument is directed against the person rather than the original subject of the debate. Whether or not it is logically false depends on whether or not the man you call "Cockface Stinkfuck" truly has a cock for a face, and stinks while making love.
 


As indeed he does.
 

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?